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

151–160 of 1001 posts

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

#151

Post by EricDeb »

brodouevencode wrote: post #34
neaden wrote: post #3

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.

So if something that is seen as a bad idea should be kept in place because "that's the way we've always done it"?

No but this is not a bad idea. Why should congress have to be experts and pass hyper specific laws for every aspect of a government agency rather than just deferring to experts?

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

#152

Post by agensaequivocum »

callroomlamp wrote: post #118

Devastating 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

The constitution mandates that the courts interpret the law. Thomas and Gorsuch are right in their concurrences, allowing the executive branch to both enforce and interpret law is abhorrent to our constitution's proscribed separation of powers.

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

#153

Post by GenerWork »

Spivak wrote: post #132
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…

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.

>Yes but people who have been listening have also been dreading this coming for years.

Why are they dreading this? I find it strange how so many people are upset that the Supreme Court is forcing Congress to do its job, which is pass laws.

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

#155

Post by rootusrootus »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #64
neaden wrote: post #3

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.

>> 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 The Roberts court has overturned fewer precedents per term than any court going back to at least the Warren court which began in 1953. If your criteria for evaluating a court is respect for precedent, you should consider the Roberts court to be a candidate for greatest of…

What I'm hearing is that qualitative is clearly more important than quantitative.

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

#156

Post by throw0101c »

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.

> It is saying that regulatory agencies cannot exceed their authority and act like the judicial branch.

On any given matter there are, at first, no laws on a given subject. Before airplanes were invented there were no rules or regulations for airplanes (FAA); similarly, pre-radio, nothing about how to use EM fields (FCC).

Now, The (US) People gave The Congress authority to make laws on any subject (limited only by the Constitution).

Congress said we will make laws limited actions on Topic X, and when non-prohibited actions are done they must be done in certain ways as prescribed by regulations. Congress further said that they cannot, ahead of time, know every situation that might arise on Topic X, but further rules may be needed.

So Congress delegated further rule making, beyond the 'base' An Act to Regulate Topic X, to an agency that Congress itself created and funded via the above Act.

An agency only exists because it was created by Congress; it only runs because it is funded by Congress. Congress says, in particular Acts, that some agency should look after the details of Topic X so Congress does not have it.

Regulatory agencies have (limited) authority because it was given to them by The People (through their elected representatives).

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

#157

Post by cogman10 »

bbayles wrote: post #138
sandworm101 wrote: post #87

So 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?

Everyone deferred to the agencies. The 1984 ruling was one of the first where Chevron challenged an agency's authority.

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

#158

Post by Molitor5901 »

kemayo wrote: post #92
Molitor5901 wrote: post #57

It Congress wants to change the law, they can. It's up to congress, not the administration, to make law. For decades it seems Congress has largely abdicated its legislative responsibility in exchange for the political ease of letting the administrative state, and the courts, make the law. Just because something has "precedence" doesn't mean it's right. Banning gay marriage had precedence, but that didn't make it righ…

That said, it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers. We've had 40 years of Chevron deference, during which time Congress wrote laws expecting that this is how they'd be interpreted. If they didn't want this behavior, they could have passed laws about it. Or included some boilerplate language within new laws about how the agency has to defer to courts for interpretation of those regulations. (Gran…

[flagged]

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

#159

Post by tivert »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #108
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> In other words, it was the executive branch that had taken more power previously. If I may disagree: it was the legislature that gave the executive branch power, and the judicial branch that essentially approved such an arrangement (unanimously) in the original Chevron ruling.

> If I may disagree: it was the legislature that gave the executive branch power, and the judicial branch that essentially approved such an arrangement (unanimously) in the original Chevron ruling.

But the only way to properly do that is a constitutional amendment.

To give an extreme though-experiment example: Lets say Congress 1) packed the Supreme Court with yes-men, 2) passed law giving themselves a huge pay raise and delegating all legislative powers to the President, while they go party. Didn't it just create a a king/dictator? Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

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

#160

Post by goodluckchuck »

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.

Courts have made common law since before the Magna Carta. To say they’ve granted themselves that responsibility out of thin air grasps at the root of western civilization as we’ve known it.
Post reply on HN