Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 1001 posts

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

#121

Post by mikeyouse »

lolinder wrote: post #104

There'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…

Nobody doubted this is where it would end up - but it's a terrible place at complete odds with judicial restraint and precedent. The courts are going to be the de facto regulatory body in the US going forward, a responsibility they granted themselves out of thin air.

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

#122

Post by torstenvl »

raytopia wrote: post #13

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

That depends. The parts of the federal government that follow the most straightforward and reasonable interpretation of the law? None. Those that are despotic and issue novel interpretations that turn Americans into felons overnight? Let's hope it messes them up quite a bit.

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

#123

Post by lolinder »

mikeyouse wrote: post #121
lolinder wrote: post #104

There'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…

Nobody doubted this is where it would end up - but it's a terrible place at complete odds with judicial restraint and precedent. The courts are going to be the de facto regulatory body in the US going forward, a responsibility they granted themselves out of thin air.

> a terrible place at complete odds with judicial restraint

On the contrary, they see themselves as them undoing many decades' worth of lack of judicial restraint. It's a change only because judicial activism has been the norm.

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

#124

Post by tivert »

delecti wrote: post #56
nradov wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The US is a common-law country. By stare decisis, the courts are indeed supposed to be bound by precedent.

> The US is a common-law country. By stare decisis, the courts are indeed supposed to be bound by precedent.

And that doesn't work, and it didn't even work to start.

IIRC, in Britain, before the US was independent, "common law" became so unworkable and and unjust because the courts were so rigidly "bound" by precedent (like you advocate), that a whole other system of law "equity" was created.

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

#125

Post by epicureanideal »

lolinder wrote: post #115

There'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…

Also, if the commenters here READ the full decision, the court explains the history and its reasoning better than any of us can do here.

That's a common feature of Supreme Court decisions, and I find many Supreme Court decisions to be very interesting reading, including those from past decades.

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

#126

Post by yieldcrv »

lolinder wrote: post #104

There'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…

thank you, I’m thinking of joining some of the groups that construct and bring cases because I’m tired of debating with people about this exact thing.

time to just work with the people that understand it, this is what we have for the next few decades

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

#127

Post by andyjohnson0 »

epicureanideal wrote: post #6
jason2323 wrote: post #2

What 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.

> A huge win for democracy and freedom that both major US parties and all citizens should celebrate.

A huge win for corporations and corporate freedom that one major US party and all shareholders should celebrate.

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

#128

Post by rootusrootus »

brettcvz wrote: post #71

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?

Congress would have to agree that the power really belongs with them, and agree to limit the Court to only that which is covered in Article III. This is entirely plausible, but I think unlikely in the short term.

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

#129

Post by rswail »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #85
brettcvz wrote: post #71

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?

No, that isn’t the case. It is saying that regulatory agencies cannot exceed their authority and act like the judicial branch. In other words, it was the executive branch that had taken more power previously.

Not "taken". It was inherently granted by Congress on the joint understanding that the intent was that agencies would engage in rule making to decide areas left undefined within the scope of the law as written.

Regulatory agencies are responsible to Congress, the Legislative Branch that has the power to adjust the law to reflect its intent. Judges are not. The understanding is that it is the agencies that are intended to have the best understanding of what they regulate, not judges.

Laws were written with this assumption in place, which the Court has just rug-pulled from the operation of the US government.

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

#130

Post by bell-cot »

aklemm wrote: post #102
bell-cot wrote: post #93

Before proclaiming that this outcome is horrible - Please consider that the Good Guys (your opinion) might not win the election in November. And that you might not want the courts auto-deferring to all the plausible-ish interpretations of ambiguous laws which gov't agency officials appointed by the Bad Guys (your opinion) might suddenly add the Official Agency Interpretations next year.

From either side, relying on the judiciary over active, well-functioning legislature is bad.

True. And having Santa Claus make all the decisions would be even better.

Unfortunately, neither Santa Claus nor an active and well-functioning legislature seem to be available.

Post reply on HN