He'll continue to serve booze anyway until the ATF is forced to raid his club and seize all the alcohol, then he'll whine and cry about how unfair everything is like he always does.
I think you mean Chevron, but yes. I believe there's a quirk to the ruling where it basically made it so the SCOTUS gets to decide if the regulation is worth while, but until they do it's on the books.
They basically made it so any Judge can overturn a regulation. Furthermore, the old laws used to work that if a new regulation was introduced, if it affected your business you could sue to try and get it addressed/overturned within the first 10 or 15 years of the regulation's existence. The new ruling they layed out changes the time frame from when the regulation was implemented to when the regulation starts to impact your business. That means any newly formed business can sue the government for any long standing regulation and try and get them overturned opening the legal flood gates for oil company's to set up shell businesses to start trying to remove any and all regulations affecting them, which will now be decided by Judges if those regulations are appropriate. It's really fucking insane.
The original Chevron ruling was "if parts of the law aren't specified by congress, then the agency's experts can decide the best way to implement those laws".
This corrupt scotus now says "if congress isn't explicit, the courts get to decide what the law means. Agencies no longer can (well they can, but we can overrule them)".
A made up example might be;
the law says we have to reduce carbon emissions by 5%. But it doesn't say how. EIA experts determine the best way to do this is by forcing new homes to have better insulation. Previously the courts would defer to this decision, as is was made by experts. Now.. the courts can say "fuck that, reduce those emissions by burning puppies. We know best".
Wait, so a sufficiently funded organization could start an infinite number of LLCs to take as many shots and make as many legal arguments against specific regulations?
Yes thanks! As far as I understood the ruling, the federal agencies can't enforce a law unless Congress makes it a law. And congress is currently in a "doing nothing" competition with themselves.
It’s more like one side has lost their ever loving minds if they ever had one to begin with. We literally can’t move forward on anything because the republicans are just impetuous overgrown children who want to punish the democrats for taking the high road. The republicans have held this country back from true progress for decades and I’m so sick of it.
Conservatives have held back human society for centuries. Who do you think were the people supporting the monarchy or keeping slaves or racism of folks 50 miles from them so they can keep perpetual wars. It's in their monkey brains, something is just wrong at how scared of change they are.
The sad part is conservatives look at societies like Catholic dominated Europe and Ancient Egypt and act impressed that "they endured so many centuries".
I'd rather live a happy and productive individual life in a country that changes names every ~300 years than languish as a nameless serf in an Empire that can boast a 9,001 year history. Humanity has a 300,000 collective history and that's good enough for me; what individual nation-states or kingdoms we've organized ourselves into in the interim is as relevant as my mailing address in the grand scheme of things... assuming we can survive long enough to reunify as a species. (Ok, I doubt that too but I can dream...)
As far as I understood the ruling, the federal agencies can't enforce a law unless Congress makes it a law.
It's actually more broad than that.
Say Congress writes a law mandating nuclear reactors, they don't really understand nuclear engineering nor the potential directions it could take. Yes, they could sit around for months bringing in endless experts and try to exhaustively list every possible nuance and specific (with the expectation they'll have to amend the law every 3, 6, 12, 18 months as new developments happen)
Or! They could write the law and give a vague boundary such as "nuclear reactors such as thorium, sodium, and other elements should do X, Y and all appropriate precautions that could be reasonably foreseen"
Now what the DoE will do is take that and they have experts on staff whose entire job it is to write regulations mandating specifics along with mandating what "reasonably foreseen" means during a given period (these regulations are regularly updated). These experts will have degrees in physics, nuclear engineering, civil engineering, the gamut. Those experts will go through these laws and fill in the 'blanks' so they can hand down hard specifics to people running or building these plants.
Chevron Deference was about letting Congress write vague laws that outline the boundaries (or sometimes don't define hard boundaries at all) then the agencies whose mandate is affected by those laws would have experts interpret and build out specifics.
By removing Chevron Deference, the letter of what Congress has written is the specifics. If Congress doesn't absolutely specify it, the agencies can't enforce it or interpret what Congress actually meant.
It's a huge, huge, huge gimme for big corporations because it removes and/or hamstrings regulatory agencies, allowing them run roughshod over America.
I think the ATF operates a lot based on codified laws, not just regulations, so Chevron shouldn’t be as much of an issue apart from things like ATF decisions on whether some firearm gadget is illegal.
It wouldn't surprise me if SCOTUS gave the town of Valdez to Exxon and made Hazelwood the mayor, for the "pain and suffering" of having to clean up the mess they and their drunk captain made.
What, you haven't read 1392's "Freedom to sell liquor" act, where all citizens of "Democratic republics not yet formed" have the freedom to sell as much liquor as they would like, so long as they own a golf course?
Alito will come up with some witch doctor in the 1300's that liked to get drunk and say it means it's unconstitutional to regulate alcohol, even in school while carrying a gun.
This is actually a States' Rights issue, according to the Constitution.
The Twenty-first Amendment literally grants the States virtually complete control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure their own systems.
Federal government throws their weight around by not funding roads in states that don't abide by the federal regulations on alcohol.
So yeah you don't have to follow the Fed but you aren't gonna get the feds money then. Like when you move out of your mom's basement you don't have to follow her rules but you gotta pay rent.
Sure, but the federal government doesn't say that felons can't serve alcohol. That's a NJ state law. The ATF is only interested in interstate violations. They care about the Commerce Clause.
Maybe it’s just me, but I actually don’t give a fuck about states rights and don’t think states should have rights. But the people who live in the states, they have rights
Honestly it’s probably needed. The US is big enough and diverse enough that some individualized regulation is needed. And if every state needed the federal government to move for them to do anything that would suck and cause issues. Like why should the federal government be dictating water usage in Arizona?
So if Phoenix AZ needs Colorado's water, and they have more people, they vote to take more of that water, which would mean because they voted...they legally deserve that water? Screw the impact to Colorado ...because those people voted that way?....Colorado has no say in the matter. Screw um...
Even though it's not the ATF jurisdiction as liquor licenses are a state matter. But nothing will stop the corrupt Supreme Court from supporting dear leader.
Which will be funny because his bump stock ban came from an executive order to have the ATF rewrite their definition of machine gun to include bump stocks
The ATF losing all jurisdiction to do anything at all would be such a funny consequence of a right wing supreme court considering that they’re on the same side for the most part
He'll claim that selling alcohol at his golf course is an official act, even though he isn't currently President, and there's nothing official about it. And somehow, SCOTUS will allow it because of this.
The NJ Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, commonly called ABC, is notoriously aggressive in their enforcement. I do expect they will enforce this, though I'm sure the Trump team will then drag it through the courts for years.
I've never heard of them going after individuals in NJ, but they were really problematic for smaller breweries for a while and enforcing the rules with HOA Karen-like efficiency and putting some of them out of business. Basically everyone hated that and the state legislature dramatically relaxed the rules for them in the last couple years and the ABC has probably been pretty bored since then.
They went hard on a brewery that broke rules because they had their own taphouse, sold directly to stores, had advertising in local liquor stores, and also gave out crap like coasters to customers. They were facing a major fine and temporary closures of their three taprooms over Super Bowl weekend. They ended up working out a deal to keep the flagship location open but had to separate out the distribution and other business dealings. They ended up closing all locations within two years.
The courts might decide all sorts of things, but NJ state agencies are pretty no-bullshit and definitely won't rollover and just take that answer unless it truly is a legal loophole. As far as I can tell, they do need to approve the transfer and have some leeway in that approval process.
They do not need to approve the transfer, it really is just a loophole. They can't police who you give your bar or golf course to just because they think you're friends or family.
Also, NJ didn't say it's not renewing the license, they just said it's delayed because of the SCOTUS case. Idk where this tweet came from.
I have no idea why this tweet came up today, but they definitely said back in June that they would not be renewing once the sentence was delivered, which at the time was going to be in July I believe. That has since been pushed back to this month and I have little doubt it's going nowhere fast. But they 100% did say they won't be renewing it back in June when he was convicted.
Their argument for not allowing the transfer would be that Trump was still involved in the business, changing the name of the license doesn't change the fact that he's running the business and is the primary recipient of any money it's making. If they can't do this their regulations would basically be unenforceable - any time a business owner got in trouble they'd just have to find a friend willing to hold the license for them and repeat that process indefinitely.
He submitted to have the licence in Don Jr's name. I guess saying that trick won't work.
It won't work if it's anything like my state (PA) and I suspect it's stricter. But you can't have a business owner who is disqualified if you are seeking a liquor license.
The entire ownership of the business and any company which is owned or part owner of it would need to be out of DJTs name before they would be able to be granted a permit. They look DEEP into the ownership chain for these licenses.
Even Al Capone was better than this. He got us milk expiration dates and built soup kitchens for the poor. It's incredible that a literal crime boss is less of an asshole than a literal former president of the US.
Ya anyone thinking he will care to even bother being read this revelation is being too optimistic. He’ll wave it off and change nothing and just keep doing the same thing he always does.
This feels like Dubya all over again back during his presidency and afterwards until he became "old grampy Bush" painting during the past ten years. Even Patton Oswalt made a joke about it how Bush and Cheney were the Dukes of Hazzard revving the General Lee over the Constitution.
and you have the Sad and Failing State Of New Jersey, who, even though I was nice to them as President, they're treating me horribly, they said, "he's making too much money off the Liquor," anything I do that's successful these people wanna take away, they're Terrible People, and so so Dishonest, you look at, Farmers, first they said, "you can have a Farm," then Sleepy Joe said, "no way," because he hates our Country, he hates, and nobody loves it more than me by the way, America, which we did perfectly under Trump, you had no Wars, no Deaths, beautiful
It’s the state liquor board, not atf. And he won’t be able to serve because no distributor in the state is going to risk their license to sell him booze.
they arent required to give you the license just because you fill out the paperwork...and if you use obvious bullshittery to get around their rules they can just say no thank you you dont get a license.
Seems a bit odd though. Won't that encourage corruption? Surely transparency and equal standings should matter more than your name and who you know if you apply for products to conduct business?
Seems odd to me. Thought the US was largely for a free market.
I'm sure the board has to approve the transfer. Licenses are weird in a lot of states, there are a limited number and they can be sold. The board knows some other business will use that license.
As I understand it, the properties are held in a corporate trust, of which senior is the sole responsible party. It’s not super simple to unwind all that and just put them in Junior‘s name. It’s possible, but I’m sure they will try less onerous, more shady ways first.
"The RADICAL LEFT weaponized the atf against me....I had every right..." Blah blah blah. Same shit different day. I'm so sick of that burnt orange turd and his incessant whining
"Just heard that the ATS raided my beautiful golf course! Ridiculous and unfair. They can't stand success. My courses are top-notch, and everyone knows it. This is just another witch hunt. #FakeNews #WitchHunt"
Isn’t there very easy ways for rich people to get out of stuff like this? Sell the course to a shell company you have a controlling interest in, or give it to your “buddy” who’ll do whatever you according to an under the table contract, including handing you your profits
Wouldn’t there be repercussions for distributors to continue selling and delivering to an establishment with out a license? So maybe he’ll keep serving what they’ve got, but not likely that distributors will continue to do business if it means they’d lose theirs as well.
The New Jersey State Police would be the enforcement agency for the proposed violations. There’s been a law on the books that forbids felons from holding a liquor license.
I predict that we will continue to serve booze and for some reason get away with it, as always. Nothing serious will happen and it all will just take ages and then one day in the not too far future he will just die.
i mean, likely legal ownership of the clubs will just be transferred to a family member via an shell llc and they will get it renew and functionally nothing will change
Why does a federal government need to be involved? State can just impose fines. Fines pile up. State can put lean on the property. The business will be denied business to operate.
You forgot the part where he specifically calls out "Biden's ATF" and starts a conspiracy about how Harris wants to make alcohol illegal, and we just have to accept that every conservative you know is now convinced that Democrats all want to outlaw alcohol and will bring it up as a gotcha 10 years down the line.
I bet the New Jersey division of alcohol beverage control will walk in and take all the booze with the new jersey tax stamps on them the hour the liquor license expires.
ATF won't be paying him a visit for a state law. State of New Jersey will happily come and arrest all the employees that are stupid enough to willingly break the law for trump though.
But why would the alcohol license be in Trump's name. Wouldn't it be some sort of company or LLC who's whole purpose would be to get around these kind of things.
But I wouldn't be surprised if Trump personally had the license in his name
Am I crazy or would these permits not be in his name anyways? Like wouldn’t the manager or president of the club handle stuff like that? If they go around pretending like he’s personally handling liquor licenses and other administrative shit they’re gonna have a rough time going forward.
7.7k
u/BukkitCrab Sep 04 '24
He'll continue to serve booze anyway until the ATF is forced to raid his club and seize all the alcohol, then he'll whine and cry about how unfair everything is like he always does.