Enabling corruption seems to be the primary agenda of this court these days.
Wouldn’t corruption be more likely to arise from a system where courts defer their decisions to mega-corporations and federal agencies?
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
111–120 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#112Some folks were predicting this: > It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. After more than three-and-a-half hours of oral argument on Wednesday, it seemed unlikely that the rule outlined in that case, known as the Chevron doctrine, will survive in its current…
> Chevron, he complained, “ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in” and implements “massive change” in areas like securities law, communications law, and environmental law.
New laws being enacted as governments change is not a shock to the system, it is business as usual. Overturning decades old precedents on the other hand...
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#113I was curious about cases where this played a role. Looks like the namesake case was about EPA Clean Air Act enforcement in the 80s (the outcome being regulation), and then an FCC ruling to classify internet providers as “information services” rather than “telecommunication services” and avoid stricter regulation (the outcome being deregulation). Overall, it seems the Chevron deference was a cornerstone of administra…
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#114Earlier 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.
Government agencies are similarly dysfunctional, though they do have the benefit of (at least hypothetically) hiring subject matter experts to guide policy, but that's kind of why we have committees in the legislative branch.
The other issue of course is that the people leading agencies are playing politics just like everyone else. Do people not remember the controversy surrounding Ajit Pai's leadership of the FCC?
The difference is you vote for your legislators directly and can hold them accountable for their actions. For federal agencies, you're at best indirectly voting for them through voting in a presidental election, but mostly there's no accountability.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#115There's a tendency among certain people on HN to act like the conservative justices have no rhyme or reason and are just a bull running mindlessly through the china shop breaking precedent at random or specifically to hurt specific groups of people.
I'm not a fan of every ruling that they've made, but this should have come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who's been paying any attention to the arguments that this court has made over and over and over again. Their legal and constitutional philosophy has been very consistent:
They believe that Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch enforces them, and the Judicial branch interprets them. They believe that the Executive branch and the Judicial branch have been compensating for Congressional failure for too long and they have been very clear that they're intent on undoing that and rolling the system back to how they believe it should be.
There's an argument to be made that this theory is incorrect and/or harmful, but they've been remarkably consistent in applying it. Anyone who's been listening to them saw this coming years ago.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#116There's a tendency among certain people on HN to act like the conservative justices have no rhyme or reason and are just a bull running mindlessly through the china shop breaking precedent at random or specifically to hurt specific groups of people. I'm not a fan of every ruling that they've made, but this should have come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who's been paying any attention to the arguments that this…
It would be somewhat amusing if Congress took the bait and wrote some legislation telling the Court to get back in its lane. Maybe the majority of justices would actually be okay with that.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#117There's a tendency among certain people on HN to act like the conservative justices have no rhyme or reason and are just a bull running mindlessly through the china shop breaking precedent at random or specifically to hurt specific groups of people. I'm not a fan of every ruling that they've made, but this should have come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who's been paying any attention to the arguments that this…
Yes anyone who's paid attention knew this was coming. I'm not sure the average American voter understands the consequences of the supreme court veering to the right however
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#118Devastating that expertise will no longer influence the application of law and policy. The biggest question is who will interpret the application of law? Will it be challenged in court once again until a clear statement is made? Meanwhile, what will be the effects of this “deregulation” until a clear statement is made
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Seems like we're evolving from common to civil law, probably for the better in the long run.
I tend to agree that civil law should be better over the long term, but I don’t see this Supreme Court letting that happen. They pretend to be deferent to congress when congress is ineffective or on their side, but the script can be easily flipped or used both ways at the same time like they do with states rights. But ultimately they would not let themselves be constrained by a hostile congress.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#120This 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?
Obvious check #1: Congress gets its sh*t together, and stops writing endless vague blather into law.
Obvious check #2: Congress enlarges the Supreme Count to 21 Justices. And lets the President know that his nominees for the 12 new positions will need to understand who's the real boss.