This seems like the judicial branch just voted to give itself substantially more power.
Are there any checks against this? Or can justices just keep granting themselves more powers and invalidating any restraints?
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
71–80 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#72Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#73Supreme court rules government illegal in landmark ruling...
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#74Earlier 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…
> 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.
That gets to the deeper problem..
If you have one group that is in charge of creating the rules, interpreting the rules, and enforcing the rules, you can't trust the process is independent and there's equal treatment.
If the legislature are not experts - and they're not on many many topics - they need to either a) find those experts for advice or b) keep their hands out of it.
Legislatures delegating their authority diminishes their office, blurs lines of authority, and lets them abdicate responsibility.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#75What 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.
There's a very good reason why technocrats are better prepared to implement policy and enforce it. They usually have vantage points from which they know the intricacies of the field under their purview, understand where compromises must be made and conversely points where it _should not_ compromise. A good administrator needs to have abilities to administrate without second guessing by a third party, unless it's demonstrable that their general objective (which every state institution has) isn't congruent with the actions taken.
Someone made the example of a factory that sells products for ingestion. If the regulator (FDA) doesn't have the tools to effectively protect the public of insecure foodstuff, who will? Consumers? Consumers will eat excrement if the price is low enough, because that's what's is available to them. Consumer power isn't vested in the consumers, it is vested in the regulatory agencies, since these have resources and expertise to recognize unfair, unsafe, anti-competitive, anti-consumer, etc practices, because unlike consumers, these have an advantage point of view, rather than the individual trying to find others with their same condition.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#76What is the significance of this
We are now going to need to place a great deal more trust in Congress to legislate with nuance and understanding of the issues. Obviously the congressmen cannot really become that knowledgeable about every topic, so they will rely even more on advisors to write the legislation for them. We have some idea of how this plays out, because it already happens.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#77From 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…
I would prefer if this conservative court would review the constitution and conclude that it must revoke its own right of judicial review.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#78I found this[0] overview from a few months ago to be helpful, and doesn't fall foul of describing the justices' views as coming solely from their being conservative or not. One example:
> Justice Neil Gorsuch told Prelogar that he was less concerned about businesses subject to changing regulations, observing that the companies “can take care of themselves” and seek relief through the political process. Instead, Gorsuch pointed to less powerful individuals who may be affected by the actions of federal agencies, such as immigrants, veterans seeking benefits, and Social Security claimants. In those cases, Gorsuch stressed, Chevron virtually always works for the agencies and against the “little guy.”
[0] https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#79This seems like the judicial branch just voted to give itself substantially more power. Are there any checks against this? Or can justices just keep granting themselves more powers and invalidating any restraints?
[dead]
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So...bad. I'm the person who prefers having regulatory bodies handle matters over a dysfunctional and ignorant congress who is political about everything.
Are you familiar with the term "regulatory capture"?