{"id":2152424,"date":"2024-01-18T08:25:01","date_gmt":"2024-01-18T13:25:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/7-takeaways-from-arguments-in-the-scotus-case-that-could-slay-the-administrative-state\/"},"modified":"2024-01-18T08:35:15","modified_gmt":"2024-01-18T13:35:15","slug":"7-takeaways-from-arguments-in-the-scotus-case-that-could-slay-the-administrative-state","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/7-takeaways-from-arguments-in-the-scotus-case-that-could-slay-the-administrative-state\/","title":{"rendered":"7 Key Points from SCOTUS Case That Could Dismantle the Administrative State"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">24<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2F7-takeaways-from-arguments-in-the-scotus-case-that-could-slay-the-administrative-state%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2152424&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div class=\"article-content\">\n<blockquote>\n<p>The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two companion cases, <em>Relentless Inc. \u200bv. U.S. Dept.\u200c of Commerce<\/em> and <em>Loper Bright\u2062 v. Raimondo<\/em> on Wednesday. The <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/nolte-in-this-fight-justin-trudeau-is-george-wallace\/\" title=\"Nolte: In This Fight, Justin Trudeau Is George Wallace\">bottom-line question<\/a> before the \u200bcourt concerned whether\u200c Congress authorized the Department of\u200b Commerce to charge \u200cfishing businesses the cost of government-mandated observers on their rigs.<\/p>\n<p>But \u2062answering that question requires the Supreme Court to first decide whether to overturn the landmark case of <em>Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council<\/em>,\u2063 the\u2062 namesake for the <em>Chevron<\/em> \u2063doctrine, which requires courts to \u2063defer to an agency\u2019s interpretation of an ambiguous\u2062 statute \u200bso\u2063 long as \u200dthe agency\u2019s interpretation is \u201creasonable.\u201d That\u2019s what \u200dWednesday\u2019s arguments were all \u2062about \u2014 <em>Chevron<\/em> \u200c and \u200dwhether the Supreme\u200b Court should do away \u200dwith\u2064 <em>Chevron<\/em> deference.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2-long d-flex justify-content-center\" style=\"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center; \" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-1531091489\">\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-1379703300879-0\" class=\"mb-30\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-f3dd032115870a6bb3cd99ed74e221a8 fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-f3dd032115870a6bb3cd99ed74e221a8\"><\/div>\n<p>Here are your\u2062 top takeaways from the hours-long arguments.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">1. What Does\u2062 <em>Chevron<\/em> Deference Mean?<\/h2>\n<ol>\n<\/ol>\n<p>A blackletter law \u2062definition of <em>Chevron<\/em> \u200cdeference is easy to provide. As noted above, it is a legal principle that requires \u2063courts \u200cto\u200c defer to an agency\u2019s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous \u200dstatute. But\u200c Wednesday\u2019s hearing \u2062showed the \u200bcontours \u2063of the doctrine are far\u200d from clear, with the justices jousting with the solicitor general, who represents the Department of\u200b Commerce, over the meaning of \u2064\u201cambiguous.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>A statute is\u200c \u201cambiguous,\u201d Solicitor General Elizabeth\u200d Prelogar said, \u201cwhen the court has exhausted\u200c the\u2063 tools of interpretation and hasn\u2019t found a\u2064 single right answer.\u201d But as\u2062 Justice Gorsuch noted in\u200d response, just the prior\u200d year, a government attorney claimed he could not define \u201cambiguous.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The meaning\u200d of \u201cambiguous\u201d is key to the doctrine of <em>Chevron<\/em> \u2064 deference, which requires two \u200csteps. \u2062At \u2064step one, a court is to \u200d\u201cemploy[] traditional tools of\u200b statutory construction\u201d to determine \u201cwhether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question \u200cat issue.\u201d According\u2064 to <em>Chevron<\/em>, \u201c[i]f the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of\u200d the matter,\u201d and the\u2062 court must enforce the\u200b clear meaning.\u201d But if \u201cthe statute is silent\u2062 or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,\u201d then\u200b the court proceeds to step two, which requires the \u2064court to \u2062defer\u200d to an \u2062agency\u2019s interpretation so long as\u200c it reflects a \u200b\u201cpermissible construction of\u200c the statute.\u201d<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-b6aec95fb07c5e3d09de3c848914eb0a fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-6\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-b6aec95fb07c5e3d09de3c848914eb0a\"><\/div>\n<p>So \u200ddefining \u201cambiguous\u201d matters, several of the justices stressed, pointing to the confusion of the \u200dlower courts on the question \u2063\u2014 something that would\u2063 justify overturning <em>Chevron<\/em>.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>2.\u2063 Justice Kavanaugh Was a Star<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ol>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Heading \u2063into Wednesday, court <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2024\/01\/17\/how-disgruntled-fishermen-could-prompt-scotus-to-capsize-the-administrative-state\/\">watchers<\/a> knew three justices had already \u2063expressed disagreement with \u200b <em>Chevron<\/em>, including Justices Clarence \u2063Thomas, Neil\u200d Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. To date, Gorsuch has made some\u2063 of the most resounding \u2062attacks on <em>Chevron<\/em> deference. And \u200cwhile \u200dGorsuch landed some blows during oral argument, it \u2062was Kavanaugh who seemed to\u2064 throw haymaker after haymaker.<\/p>\n<p>Kavanaugh returned to ground zero \u2014 the <em>Chevron<\/em> decision \u2014 and pushed the solicitor \u2062general on what he saw \u200bas \u201can internal inconsistency in <em>Chevron<\/em> itself.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt related to footnote 9,\u201d he explained. That\u2063 footnote provides that \u201cthe judiciary is the final authority on\u2064 issues of statutory construction and\u200c must reject administrative \u2063constructions\u2064 which are contrary\u2062 to clear congressional intent.\u201d Accordingly, the \u200d <em>Chevron<\/em> court continued, \u201c[i]f a court, employing traditional tools \u200cof\u2064 statutory \u200cconstruction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and \u200bmust be given effect.\u201d<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-3798e1274e987914f7c2400145ea254e fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-10\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-3798e1274e987914f7c2400145ea254e\"><\/div>\n<p>Referencing that footnote, Kavanaugh continued, \u201cif you\u2063 use all the traditional tools of \u2062statutory interpretation, you\u2019ll get an answer,\u201d and therefore, there is no step two and no deference. And we\u2063 know you get an \u200danswer, the Trump appointee stressed, \u201cbecause, in cases where we don\u2019t have an agency involved and we use those same traditional tools, we get an answer.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Kavanaugh reiterated that point several \u200dtimes throughout the\u2063 argument, namely \u200bthat\u2062 courts interpret \u2063statutes regularly, both ambiguous and\u2062 unambiguous ones, implying\u200d that if judges\u2062 did the tough work of statutory interpretation, there would be no step two deference required.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">3. Stakes Are\u2062 Enormous<\/h2>\n<ol>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Another notable theme from Wednesday was the effect of reversing <em>Chevron<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Soon after arguments in\u2064 <em>Relentless<\/em> began, Justice Elena Kagan monopolized the questioning by peppering the fishing company\u2019s attorney with hypotheticals. \u2064What was most striking, though, were\u200d not the difficult \u2062scenarios posed, but her assertion that \u201cthe court is very rarely\u200c in the situation \u200din which you\u2019re talking where it thinks the law means\u200d X \u200cand instead it says Y,\u201d\u200d because of deference under <em>Chevron<\/em>. \u201cIf it thinks it means X, under <em>Chevron<\/em>, as we\u2019ve\u2063 understood it and \u200bmade clear and \u200dreigned it in a little bit \u2062over these last few years, it\u2019s\u2062 supposed to say X,\u201d\u2062 Kagan continued. <em>Chevron<\/em> \u2063 really only\u200d applies, the Obama appointee \u200dsuggested, when \u2062the \u201claw runs out\u201d and \u200b\u201cthere\u2019s a genuine ambiguity.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Kagan\u2019s \u200cefforts to portray <em>Chevron<\/em> as a tie-breaker\u200d contrasted sharply \u2064with the sky-is-falling arguments the government presented. Overruling\u200d <em>Chevron<\/em> would \u201cshock\u201d \u200b\u201cthe\u2063 legal system,\u201d the \u2063<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-reinstates-death-penalty-for-boston-bomber-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-committed-heinous-crimes\/\" title=\"Supreme Court Reinstates Death Penalty for Boston Bomber: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev 'Committed Heinous Crimes'\">solicitor general argued<\/a>\u2063 in\u2063 her opening comments to the\u200d court. \u200dYet later in her argument, she too \u2064seemingly acknowledged \u2063that \u2063many of the cases are resolved at the first step of\u2063 <em>Chevron<\/em>, meaning\u2063 deference is not even required. Under these circumstances, \u2063it is difficult to take seriously the worst-case-scenario prognoses presented by <em>Chevron<\/em>\u2019s champions.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">4. Congress Needs to Do\u2062 Its Damn Job<\/h2>\n<ol>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Another common theme pushed, especially\u200d by \u2062Kagan, concerned \u2062the question of \u201cwho decides?\u201d If there \u2062is an \u2062ambiguity, \u200dKagan posed several\u2063 times, do \u2064we want the agency or the courts \u2064to make \u2064the policy\u200b decision?<\/p>\n<p>The\u2063 correct answer, however, is neither: Congress should <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/garland-refuses-to-answer-if-biological-males-competing-against-women-is-unfair-a-difficult-question\/\" title=\"Garland Refuses To Answer If Biological Males Competing Against Women Is Unfair: \u2018A Difficult Question\u2019\">make policy decisions<\/a>\u200c and draft statutes that \u200cprovide clarity on the law. \u200dWhen Congress delegates authority \u2064to administrative agencies, such authority should similarly be clear.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">5. <em>Stare Decisis<\/em><\/h2>\n<ol>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The prudential principle of <em>stare decisis<\/em> also featured heavily \u2062in oral arguments, with the \u2063government arguing it \u2064cuts\u2063 against overturning the \u200d <em>Chevron<\/em> doctrine. \u2062Businesses need\u2064 certainty, the solicitor\u200d general argued, and overturning <em>Chevron<\/em> \u2064would destroy\u2062 the predictability of the law.<\/p>\n<p>On\u200b the contrary, the fishing businesses\u2019 attorneys stressed, what\u2063 creates \u2062uncertainty is <em>Chevron<\/em> deference, which allows for\u2064 each new administration to reverse prior regulations. Several justices seemed to \u2063share that viewpoint as well. Further, as several of the justices noted, the unworkability of a legal rule can justify \u2063its reversal, notwithstanding\u200b <em>stare decisis<\/em> \u2014 \u2063and\u2062 several of the exchanges on Wednesday showed <em>Chevron<\/em> deference, in its current iteration, is \u2062unworkable.<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">6. Oh, the Humility!<\/h2>\n<ol>\n<\/ol>\n<p>Another key exchange originated\u2063 when Kagan pushed \u2062Paul Clement,\u2062 attorney \u200cfor the \u200bfishermen in <em>Loper Bright<\/em>, on humility.<\/p>\n<p><em>Chevron<\/em> is\u2063 a doctrine of humility, Kagan \u2063began, noting that in that\u2063 doctrine the court \u200b\u201crecognize[s] that there are some places where congressional direction has run out, and we think Congress \u2064would\u200d have\u200d wanted the agency to do something rather than the courts.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWe accept \u2063that because that\u2019s the best reading of Congress and also because we know in our heart of\u200d hearts that Congress \u2014 \u2062that agencies know things that courts do not,\u201d she continued.<\/p>\n<p>On\u200c top of that, Kagan noted \u2063that overturning <em>Chevron<\/em> conflicted \u2064with \u2064the principle of \u2063 <em>stare decisis<\/em> \u2014 \u200banother doctrine \u200dof humility \u2014 which, as she put it, \u200bsays\u200c \u201cwe don\u2019t\u200d willy-nilly \u2064reverse things unless there\u2019s\u2062 a special justification.\u201d Then came \u2063her talking point: \u201cAnd you\u2019re saying blow up one doctrine of humility, blow up another \u2064doctrine of \u200dhumility,\u200d and then expect anybody to\u200b think \u2063that the courts \u200care acting like\u200d courts.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Kagan\u2019s comments suggest\u2063 she \u200csought to sell <em>Chevron<\/em> to her fellow justices based on concerns over institutional integrity, while implying a vote to overturn that landmark case \u2063could only come from\u200b hubris.<\/p>\n<p>Gorsuch, \u2062who filled the vacancy\u200c on the court left by Justice Antonin Scalia\u2019s\u2062 death and \u200bwas having none \u2063of \u2062Kagan\u2019s argument, called \u2063on his predecessor\u2019s name in retort: \u201cOne \u2062lesson of humility is [to] admit when you\u2019re wrong. Justice Scalia, who took <em>Chevron<\/em>, which nobody understood to include this \u2062two-step move as originally written, turned it into\u200b what we now know,\u200d and late in life, he came to regret that decision.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">7. Predictions<\/h2>\n<ol>\n<\/ol>\n<p>From oral\u200b argument, Gorsuch and \u2064Kavanaugh seem definite\u2064 votes for reversing <em>Chevron<\/em> deference. \u200dThomas, given his past\u200b writings, seems a likely vote for reversal. In one exchange, \u2063Justice \u2063Samuel\u2062 Alito seemed to \u200dmirror much \u2062of Kavanaugh\u2019s thinking, namely that the courts already interpret statutes in other areas, and can do so here\u2062 too, without needing to\u200b defer to\u200b agencies.<\/p>\n<p>Both\u2063 Justices Roberts and\u200d Barrett were more\u200d coy in their\u2064 questioning, creating\u2063 uncertainty about their positions. \u2062Conversely Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson all\u200b favored \u200cthe <em>Chevron<\/em> framework.<\/p>\n<p>Bottom line: There is no sure-fire forecast of the\u2064 outcome. But something \u2062Gorsuch said might provide the best insight into the likely result.<\/p>\n<p>During one exchange, the solicitor\u200b general suggested that\u2062 the court merely reiterate to the lower\u2064 courts the importance\u2064 of \u2062undertaking a robust step-one inquiry. Gorsuch pointedly protested that the court had\u2062 already on multiple occasions\u2064 reminded the lower courts of their \u2063responsibility under <em>Chevron<\/em> to\u2062 conduct an \u2064extensive analysis of the statute to resolve the\u2064 question\u200b prior to\u2062 deferring to the agencies. What good is\u200c another reminder likely to \u200ddo?<\/p>\n<p>Right there \u200dcould be\u2062 the reason two undecided\u2063 justices join to form a majority to \u2064overturn <em>Chevron<\/em> \u2014 it is just \u2063not \u2062workable because the lower courts\u2062 won\u2019t do the work required.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-37213f1158ad34702984bf481c0dcefc fdrlst__b89e9-after-post-content\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-37213f1158ad34702984bf481c0dcefc\"><\/div>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\">\n<\/div>\n<p> <\/p>\n<h2> \u200c Did Justice Kavanaugh\u200b effectively challenge \u2063the solicitor general&#8217;s arguments on the internal inconsistency within the Chevron decision? What was \u2062his main argument and \u2063how \u200bdoes it\u200b relate to the need for\u200b deference to\u2063 agency interpretations?<\/h2>\n<p><span>  The United States \u200dSupreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in\u2063 two companion cases, Relentless Inc. v. U.S. \u200bDept. of Commerce and Loper Bright v. Raimondo. The main question before the court was whether Congress\u200c authorized\u2063 the Department of \u200dCommerce to charge fishing businesses for the cost of government-mandated \u200dobservers on \u2062their rigs. However, answering that \u2062question required the court to \u2062first decide whether\u2064 to overturn\u200b the\u200c landmark case \u2062of Chevron v.\u2063 Natural \u200dResources Defense Council, the namesake for the \u2063Chevron doctrine, which\u2062 requires courts\u2062 to \u200ddefer to\u2063 an agency&#8217;s interpretation\u200b of an ambiguous statute as long as it is reasonable. This article provides an overview of the key takeaways from the oral arguments.<\/p>\n<p>1. What Does Chevron Deference Mean?<\/p>\n<p>Chevron deference is a \u200blegal principle that requires courts\u2062 to defer to an\u200b agency&#8217;s reasonable interpretation of an \u2063ambiguous statute. However, during the arguments, the meaning of &#8220;ambiguous&#8221; \u2062came into question, with the justices debating the definition with the solicitor\u200c general. The\u200d definition of &#8220;ambiguous&#8221;\u200d is significant because it determines whether the court proceeds to step \u200ctwo of \u200dthe Chevron doctrine, which requires deference \u200dto the agency&#8217;s interpretation.<\/p>\n<p>2. Justice Kavanaugh Was a Star<\/p>\n<p>Justice Kavanaugh \u200dstood out during the arguments, challenging the solicitor general \u200don what he perceived as an internal inconsistency \u200din the Chevron decision. He referred to footnote 9, which states that the \u2062judiciary is \u200bthe final authority on \u200dissues of statutory \u2062interpretation. Kavanaugh argued that \u200dif traditional tools \u2064of statutory interpretation can provide an \u200banswer, there is no need\u2062 for deference\u2063 to the agency&#8217;s interpretation.<\/p>\n<p>3. Stakes \u200bAre Enormous<\/p>\n<p>The potential impact of overturning Chevron was a significant theme during the arguments. Justice Kagan highlighted how deference\u2062 under\u200d Chevron prevents the court from deviating from its understanding of the\u2063 law, \u2063except in\u200d cases \u2064of genuine \u2062ambiguity. The government argued against overturning Chevron, \u200cclaiming it would disrupt \u200bthe legal system. However, several justices\u200c pointed out\u2062 that many cases are \u2062resolved at step one of Chevron, suggesting that the worst-case\u2063 scenarios presented by \u2063Chevron&#8217;s defenders may be overstated.<\/p>\n<p>4. Congress Needs to Do Its Damn Job<\/p>\n<p>Another common theme \u200din the arguments was \u200bthe \u200crole of \u200bCongress in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/social-media-users-track-stock-trading-as-congress-considers-member-ban\/\" title=\"Social Media Users Track Stock Trading As Congress Considers Member Ban\">making policy decisions<\/a> and providing clarity on the law.\u2064 Rather than leaving the decision to the agency or the courts, \u2062the correct answer, according to \u2064several justices,\u200b is for Congress to draft \u200cclear statutes that delegate authority to administrative agencies.<\/p>\n<p>5. Stare Decisis<\/p>\n<p>The principle of stare decisis, which refers to \u200dthe court&#8217;s practice of adhering \u2063to precedent, was heavily discussed during the arguments. \u200dThe government argued\u200d that overturning Chevron\u2064 would \u200cundermine certainty in the law. However, the attorneys representing the\u2064 fishing businesses emphasized that Chevron \u2062deference creates uncertainty by allowing each new administration to \u2063reverse prior regulations.<\/p>\n<p>6. Oh, the Humility!<\/p>\n<p>Justice \u2063Kagan raised \u200dthe issue of\u200d humility in the Chevron doctrine, \u2064noting that it recognizes that there are areas where congressional direction\u200b has run out,\u2064 and \u200dthe court believes Congress would have wanted the agency to\u200c make policy decisions. She argued\u200d that overturning Chevron would go against the principles\u2063 of humility and stare decisis, \u200bimplying that doing so would\u2064 be a display of hubris.<\/p>\n<p>The oral arguments in these\u200d two cases highlighted the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/bidens-border-crisis-doesnt-look-very-made-up-now\/\" title=\"Biden's border crisis is real.\">complex issues surrounding<\/a> \u200dthe Chevron doctrine and its \u200cpotential implications. The Supreme Court&#8217;s \u200cdecision will have\u2062 significant ramifications for the deference given \u2062to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes and\u2062 the balance of power between the branches of government.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two related cases, Relentless Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce and Loper Bright v. Raimondo. The main issue was whether the Department of Commerce had the authority to make fishing businesses pay for government-mandated observers on their rigs. Answering this question is crucial, but complex<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2152425,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2152424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2152424","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2152424"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2152424\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2152425"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2152424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2152424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2152424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}