81–90 of 1001 posts
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)
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.
It depends on which tradition they're talking about. Could it predate the rule of law?
1. Is the prior precedent what I want? If no, go to 2.
2. Is the prior precedent consistent with "textualism", i.e. can we find enough period writings which use the words in the constutition a certain way? If no, go to 3.
3. Is the prior precedent consistent with "originalism", i.e. can we find enough period writings which suggest some people peripherally or directly involved with the drafting of the constitution (or state constutitions) thought of an issue in the same way we want to rule? If no, go to 4.
4. Rule that way anyways, and just do your best to justify it with whatever you dug up for 2 and 3.
What is the significance of this
When Congress writes a law that establishes a new regulatory agency, they outline what that agency does and how they enforce the regulations. Inevitably as time goes on, new edge cases come up or someone realize that the law is ambiguous. Chevron deference established a precedent where the regulatory agencies were allowed to resolve these ambiguous cases or do things not specifically written into the law. This decisi…
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?
What is the significance of this
Practically, the major effect here is to reduce the power of the executive (and of Congress to delegate to the executive) and increase the power of the courts.
Like many of the Supreme Court's actions, it needs to be understood in the context of the years of history of Congress being in an almost total state of paralysis, so decisions that nominally "kick things back" to Congress are of enormous significance.
The decision tries to say that this doesn't affect the solidness of the many many prior cases that relied on Chevron deference, but expect a flood of challenges to regulations in basically every field.
Enabling corruption seems to be the primary agenda of this court these days.
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…
I would prefer if this conservative court would review the constitution and conclude that it must revoke its own right of judicial review.