Well, they’re unhappy now, but, the minute the Government comes after them in an un-Constitutional manner they’ll be happy for the ruling. But, will Biden and the Executive Branch follow the ruling?
‘Tough luck’: The Supreme Court just took a new bite out of Biden’s agencies’ powers
The Supreme Court’s newest rebuke of the Securities and Exchange Commission is threatening to unleash chaos throughout the federal government, creating uncertainty about the limits on agencies’ power to punish law-breakers.
The 6-3 ruling held that the Constitution’s 7th Amendment guarantee to a trial by jury applies when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud. But legal experts said it raises questions about a wide range of agencies’ ability to impose fines for violations of a host of laws and rules, including those protecting consumers, workers and the environment.
Agencies that suddenly face new potential challenges to their decades-old enforcement powers include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Labor Department and the National Labor Relations Board, lawyers and former agency officials told POLITICO.
The decision “could threaten EPA’s enforcement program as we know it,” said Kevin Minoli, a former acting general counsel at the agency. He said it raises questions about whether “everyone facing a government penalty has the right to request a jury trial” — and how many defendants will choose to invoke that right.
Most EPA enforcement actions are handled through an administrative process, not litigation, Minoli noted in an email. The agency does not have the resources to take every environmental violation to court, and neither does the Justice Department, said Minoli, now an attorney at Alston & Bird.
Let’s take a look at that 7th Amendment
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
If the government is coming after you for more than $20 they should have to prove their case in front of a jury, should they not? And, let’s be clear, it’s the Executive Branch which is doing this, all while working as prosecutor and judge. Leftist say that all sorts of criminals (who often do not even know they broke some arcane law or rule, with many of those rules not even being the intention of the duly passed laws) will now get away with it because the government doesn’t have the resources to prosecute. Well, yeah, that’s too bad, but, the government must be responsive to The People. It is not our ruler. Perhaps now the government will go after the big cases, rather than going after the little people who do not have the resources to fight the government, which made them easy targets.
https://twitter.com/StevenJDuffield/status/1806339082122822032
The ruling should have been 9-0, but, the liberals are unfamiliar with the tenants of the Constitution and that government is limited, and forbidden to act as potentates. That government is not allowed to run roughshod on the citizens it is meant to serve. And lots of liberals are very upset. Right up to the point where it is them the government is going after.
One has to ask: why would there be any dissenters when the plain text of the Seventh Amendment is there?
It doesn’t matter what the Seventh Amendment states since the left has decided the entire Constitution is a “living, breathing” document.
So how about that uh… “debate”, huh?
Bwaha! Lolgf
when i clicked on to The Pirates Cove this morning and the first dozen comments were not Dowd and H that Mr Trump won the debate. I didn’t watch it, never do. But just seeing the two commies kept their traps shut was good enough for me. i then went to YouTube and watched Trump slaughter the pedo moron. Glorious!!
William Teach: If the government is coming after you for more than $20 they should have to prove their case in front of a jury, should they not?
Dana: One has to ask: why would there be any dissenters when the plain text of the Seventh Amendment is there?
Enforcement of government regulation has not been considered “at common law” under the Seventh Amendment. The Supreme Court has taken this tack for decades. One practical problem is that many laws have been written based on this long-standing Supreme Court precedent (which is why stare decisis has traditionally been given such weight by the courts). Another problem is that government will have much more difficulty enforcing regulations, even those you might agree with (such as someone dumping pollutants upstream of you). Still another problem is that by sending the cases to court, it will delay enforcement, raise the costs of enforcement, and empower entrenched moneyed interests who are adept at manipulating the court system (even ignoring the corrupting influence on the court itself).
Note: The ruling doesn’t necessarily affect disgorgement or certain equitable remedies. Nor will it help with Trump’s own civil losses, which were suits at common law decided by jury.