The 5th Circuit just ruled the SEC has no oversight power

So maybe I can try to ask some honest questions here since the fucking tweet is a fucking tweet. I went to the actual ruling and read it for a while. It would be nice to have an actual summary of the conclusions because I need to go out for coffee and a snack so here is what I have so far.

It seems to me that in this case the SEC made a determinations that some company violated regulations and imposed a penalty. This is the established purpose of the SEC to regulate and impose fines regarding the adherence to the rules.

The company that got the fine argues that the SEC cannot act as judge and jury in the crime requiring them to present evidence in a court to a jury and have legal arguments over the company's guilt.

Maybe I am wrong about what this implies and means, and please explain if I am because I am actually interested.

However, shouldn't the government actually have to prove it's case to a jury rather than simply to an administrator at the SEC who would be a government employee? Wouldn't allowing the SEC to just decide internally that the law has been violated just be a huge area of corruption?

I get that I want these regulations to be enforced on companies and weakening the SEC would be bad because it undermines necessary riules being enforced. However, the fundamental problem with the SEC is the corruption within, and allowing it to be the arbitrary decider of the rules and who violates them while only presenting the case to a government judge who is endowed with power based on a truly biased and corrupt system is in need of being fixed.

Yes, a business accused of breaking regulations should have some legal recourse to have evidence presented against them to a neutral body of the citizenship which is our jury system. You should be able to argue your fines beyond the agency imposing them.

If there is something more to this, please let me know because I have missed it.

The problem I am sort of seeing is the OP and the tweet sucked. Reading the tweet and the OP gave me the suggestion that people were finding the idea of having to present evidence to a jury trial was something the government regulators shouldn't have to do. Then everyone was so happy about that and cheering for it.

That is what was presented unless you read really deep into the decision and what happened. That tweet was optically undermining the intentions of the person who made it because it highlighted the argument against a entity being able to defend themself in a jury trial. Can anyone here say @Chaos Descending has the intellectual capacity to read into any of these nuances to find out the other problems? Even I come to the conclusion we need to allow for a jury court challenge of decisions of the SEC rather than just allow the SEC to do it's thing based on the bias of who is elected and appoints them. A prosecutor cannot also be the jury while an appointed judge looks over their work. That is so wrong.

Yes, it will hurt the power of the SEC, but we have to arrange that power and punishment system differently. We cannot just leave a corrupt system open to the corruption because at the moment we need the regulation. The reality is if we cannot get the proper regulation into place because of politics then things need to hurt so people recognize the need to make a proper social contract.

Yes, that is where society is at. This may not be able to be done painlessly. People may need top suffer again to get the lesson. This is the system that is in place, and if you do not like it then we need a system where democracy and even representative government is tossed for some sort of benevolent leadership that is run through tyranny which is not really possible at all.