Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#61

Post by iaw » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 2:57 PM UTC

gradus_ad wrote: post #22

neaden wrote: post #3

This 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.

"(4) Because Chevron’s justifying presumption is, as Members of the Court have often recognized, a fiction, the Court has spent the better part of four decades imposing one limitation on Chevron after another. Confronted with the byzantine set of preconditions and exceptions that has resulted, some courts have simply bypassed Chevron or failed to heed its various steps and nuances. The Court, for its part, has not de…

So.... Feels like all this ignoring Stare Decisis is setting the groundwork for the court to get packed and become another joke of our governance mechanism.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#62

Post by ttyprintk » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 2:57 PM UTC

spanktheuser wrote: post #38

neaden wrote: post #3

This 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.

And this would be true for any activist court. To me, the combination of a flaccid Congress plus activist court implies an era of disposable precedents.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#63

Post by mindslight » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 2:57 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #31

raytopia wrote: post #13

How much is this going to mess up the ability for the federal government to operate?

The hope from conservatives seems to be 100%.

*reactionaries. "Conservatives" is now more of an appropriate label for the other party. I'm not making a judgement about whether this particular state of things needed to be conserved or shook up, just about the use of labels that imply wanting to preserve the status quo for groups that want to radically change it.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#64

Post by rufus_foreman » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 2:58 PM UTC

neaden wrote: post #3

This 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.

>> This court continues to make decisions that might be defensible if you were making them for the first time, but go against decades of precedent

The Roberts court has overturned fewer precedents per term than any court going back to at least the Warren court which began in 1953. If your criteria for evaluating a court is respect for precedent, you should consider the Roberts court to be a candidate for greatest of all time.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#65

Post by silverquiet » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 2:58 PM UTC

spanktheuser wrote: post #38

neaden wrote: post #3

This 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.

How do you imagine a liberal majority would come about within the next few decades? This was engineered over decades and now the conservatives have all the marbles; that's why they feel so free to rule how they've always wanted.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#66

Post by Molitor5901 » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 2:58 PM UTC

Drakim wrote: post #52

brodouevencode wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Obviously an outright bad idea should not be kept around just because that's how we have always done it, but don't underestimate the value of predictability and stability. Society can't operates if laws change every day, even if it's driven by a desire to make the laws better.

"Obviously an outright bad idea should not be kept around just because that's how we have always done it.."

But who decides that? Laws do NOT change every day and I look forward to your examples of that. The problem is that laws are not changing, and legislators are depending on the courts to do the hard work for them.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#67

Post by adamc » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 2:58 PM UTC

consumer451 wrote: post #43

From Justice Kagan's dissent on page 82: > This Court has long understood Chevron deference to reflect what Congress would want, and so to be rooted in a presumption of legislative intent. Congress knows that it does not—in fact cannot—write perfectly complete regulatory statutes... > It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other…

Our court is now activist in a very regressive way. The ride is going to be a very bumpy one until it generates sufficient pushback.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#68

Post by maxwell » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 2:59 PM UTC

neaden wrote: post #29

epicureanideal wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes bad precedents need to be overturned when decades of evidence have accumulated that it was a mistake, and this is one 100% of people should be happy about. There have been other poorly decided precedents in the past that were later overturned, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

The legislature are not experts and it is reasonable for them to rely on the experts in the agencies that they created to fine tune implementation. If this was really bad then you should take it up with the legislature to change the laws. This goes into a core misunderstanding I think a lot of Americans have, that we have three co-equal branches of government. That was not the intention, the Legislature is supposed t…

Then they can consult with experts, put it in a bill, and vote on it, instead of leaving it up to later extra-legislative discretion from political appointees with questionable expertise.

It sounds like you're referring to Locke's view on separation of power? He did hold legislative power supreme over the others like you say, but also noted that legislative power derives its authority from the people (consent of the governed), who have the right to make and unmake the legislature.

> And when the people have said we will submit to rules, and be governed by laws made by such men... nobody else can say other men shall make laws for them; nor can the people be bound by any laws but as such as are enacted by those whom they have chosen, and authorized to make laws for them.

Representation is now extremely poor in the United States. Colonial Americans enjoyed better representation on paper (though virtual) than the average American does today. People have better representation in Commie China. We're an extreme outlier among OECD countries, with over 700k constituents per rep. Compare Nordic countries, with more like 40k per rep, closer to the U.S. in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The only act of Congress I advocate for is repealing the "Permanent" Apportionment Act of 1929.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#69

Post by HelloMcFly » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 2:59 PM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #12

badrequest wrote: post #8

Earlier 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)

All you need is a lot of money, a lot of time, a problem that is fixable, legislators willing to work together, and/or a judiciary operating outside political ideologies.

We'll be fine, everyone. Nothing to see here.

Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine

#70

Post by justsocrateasin » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 2:59 PM UTC

epicureanideal wrote: post #12

badrequest wrote: post #8

Earlier 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)

In theory, I entirely agree - regulation should not be decided by agencies, but by lawmakers. In practice, this is so painfully far from reality. Do you really think congress has the ability to pass meaningful legislation on complex issues? Do you think that lifelong politicians can do a better job than civil servants who have spent their entire lives studying this particular issue?