[flagged]
yes I imagine your average American would be surprised if you explained it to them.
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
131–140 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#132There'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 but people who have been listening have also been dreading this coming for years. The fact that they're consistently knocking over shelves doesn't make it better.
We've known that Roe was on the chopping block, but it doesn't make it good law even if it's consistent with the conservative justices' goals.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#133There'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…
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#134This is a fantastic outcome.
If you give an agency the power to interpret the law that congress has prescribed to the agency, the agency will almost always chose an interpretation that is in their self-interest - often leading to a corrupt (really, just an outright wrong) interpretation of the law.
It's surprising that Chevron was ever even case law. Thank goodness we have a set of justices that are actually looking to get rid of conflicts of interest and focus on an objective and conflict-free rule of law.
It seems based on the dissent liberals want to relish in giving government agencies power to interpret what they want, which is consistent with yesterday's dissent from the liberals where the liberals dissented with the SEC case where the liberals dissent stated that the SEC should be able to prosecute individuals in their own SEC-based rules with their own SEC-based court.
The court system is moving to ensure there are more checks and balances and that the law is interpreted and prosecuted in a way that has less conflict of interest.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#135So if courts aren't to defer to agencies on such matters, to where do they look? Congress? The executive? We can hate on regulatory agencies all day long, but they are least get stuff done. They show up to work and figure out how to move forwards. This decision seams a win for those political groups who, rather than actual fix anything, are bent on throwing sand into the gearbox.
"They get things done" has been one of the selling points for more than a few tyrannical regimes throughout history.
And comparing the likes of the IRS or FDA to the tyrannical regimes of the past is the hallmark of sovereign citizens, tax protestors, healthcare deniers, and other bunker-dwellers who see view traffic tickets as an attack on their god-given right to drive a Tesla while trading bitcoin on a cellphone.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#136Earlier 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.
You have misunderstood. The Supreme Court isn't bound by stare decisis. They are free to overturn precedent if they have appropriate rationale.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publicat...
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#137Devastating 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
It's not about the application of law. It's about the ambiguity of law. If anything, they'll need to rely on more expertise now, so they can craft laws that aren't open to interpretation. This is a fantastic decision on the part of the court.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#138So if courts aren't to defer to agencies on such matters, to where do they look? Congress? The executive? We can hate on regulatory agencies all day long, but they are least get stuff done. They show up to work and figure out how to move forwards. This decision seams a win for those political groups who, rather than actual fix anything, are bent on throwing sand into the gearbox.
What did they do prior to 1984?
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#139There'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…
who says that conservative justices have no rhyme or reason? Everyone knows they work shamelessly to advance their conservative political goals.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If nothing else it is further evidence that they themselves aren’t concerned with slow and moderate change.
This court is only conservative in their political positions. In their actions they are extreme.