How much is this going to mess up the ability for the federal government to operate?
The hope from conservatives seems to be 100%.
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
31–40 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
FDA finds food factory to be non compliant with food safety standards. FDA can't shut down the factory. It has to take it to court. A Judge with a JD or a jury of random people will decide if the factory can stay open. Factory stays open. Millions of people eat salmonella contaminated food.
I'm guessing the next stage is to prevent people from being able to sue said factories?
By opening the package of salmonella you've agreed to binding arbitration agreement in the venue of their choosing.... Sadly I'm not even that far from serious.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#33What is the significance of this
It's another chip away at oversight protections.
The more things like this happen, the more the function of government (and business, and relationship between labor and business) will return to the way they were operated in the US between 1880 and 1920.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#34This court continues to make decisions that might be defensible if you were making them for the first time, but go against decades of precedent in which time many laws have been written on the assumption that things would work a certain way. For a group that claims to be holding to tradition they sure are willing to throw things into chaos.
So if something that is seen as a bad idea should be kept in place because "that's the way we've always done it"?
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#35What is the significance of this
Huge and positive in the direction of lawmakers making law, not regulatory bodies that are unelected. Similarly in favor of trials by jury and not by regulatory administrative courts. A huge win for democracy and freedom that both major US parties and all citizens should celebrate.
How is it a win when the US justice system is so incredibly broken? This is a win for rich people and greedy firms who can drown their victims in drawn out legal action by throwing money at them. Jury trials are a zero sum game and are not actually that great at achieving just outcomes. They make sense for individuals, but corporations are NOT people and should not be entitled to the same constitutional rights.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations will run roughshod over regulators and everyday citizens' lives will be measurably worse as a consequence.
Not at all. They can still be sued, and lawmakers can still make laws. (edited, originally mistakenly wrote "regulators" can still make laws, which is exactly the wrong thing)
The word "can" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#37What is the significance of this
Huge and positive in the direction of lawmakers making law, not regulatory bodies that are unelected. Similarly in favor of trials by jury and not by regulatory administrative courts. A huge win for democracy and freedom that both major US parties and all citizens should celebrate.
I don’t understand this take, because the elected officials could have always made any law regulating this stuff regardless of this ruling. The fact they haven’t tells us something.
And this ruling will result in a lot of the common good (limited resources like fish, air quality, etc) being trampled upon and becoming the profit of a couple companies, taking these goods away (sometimes irrevocably such as in the case of over fishing) for the generations of the future.
We need our regulatory bodies to be able to move faster because by the time congress might respond it will be too late.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#38This court continues to make decisions that might be defensible if you were making them for the first time, but go against decades of precedent in which time many laws have been written on the assumption that things would work a certain way. For a group that claims to be holding to tradition they sure are willing to throw things into chaos.
Long term, I wonder if this destroys the Supreme Court. I see no reason why a future liberal majority would feel bound by any conservative precedent in the future. Replace respect for precedent with whatever position wins a majority and the incentive to pack the court seems irresistible.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#39This court continues to make decisions that might be defensible if you were making them for the first time, but go against decades of precedent in which time many laws have been written on the assumption that things would work a certain way. For a group that claims to be holding to tradition they sure are willing to throw things into chaos.
That is a feature, not a bug. Supreme Court decisions are informed by precedent, not bound by precedent. If that creates chaos it's not their fault. Blame the legislators who wrote bad or vague laws in the first place. If the laws were sufficiently clear and specific then the Supreme Court wouldn't have much work to do.
And let's not have any ridiculous claims that the Supreme Court needs to legislate from the bench because Congress is dysfunctional. In most of the areas where Congress has failed to pass new or revised laws there are real divisions or lack of consensus in the country. It's more important to preserve our Constitutional separation of powers even if that leads to bad outcomes on particular issues.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
FDA finds food factory to be non compliant with food safety standards. FDA can't shut down the factory. It has to take it to court. A Judge with a JD or a jury of random people will decide if the factory can stay open. Factory stays open. Millions of people eat salmonella contaminated food.
I'm guessing the next stage is to prevent people from being able to sue said factories?
Nah, there will be some binding arbitration clause hidden on that package of rice , so you can't sue or join a class action.