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

171–180 of 1001 posts

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

#171

Post by Brybry »

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…

I think it's fair to say that the conservative justices have not been consistent with their professed ideologies.

For a recent example, in SNYDER v. UNITED STATES the dissent appears to say, to me, that the majority opinion was neither originalist nor textualist in deciding that 18 U. S. C. §666 applies only to bribes and not gratuities. [1]

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf

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

#172

Post by torstenvl »

pininja wrote: post #54

I 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…

Until today, most national policy was set by "experts," i.e., people whose careers, professional reputation, and emotional bonds are bound up in the industry. That is to say, the rich and connected in any given area of life. The SEC is staffed with "experts" in exchanging securities, i.e., successful traders, who are then expected to govern traders.

The inexorable result of this status quo is corruption and oligarchy.

https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congr...

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

#173

Post by failuser »

jjk166 wrote: post #112
throw0101c wrote: post #45

Some 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...

I can’t help but to read this as “we need a life-long dictator so we will not have to deal with the results of the elections”

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

#174

Post by tmountain »

dctoedt wrote: post #98

Time for Congress to start aggressively using its express constitutional power (under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause of Article III) to circumscribe federal courts' power to set aside congressional directives such as the ones that led to Chevron deference. "Separation of powers" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; it's a bootstrapped creature of power-seeking judges.

They can barely agree to increase the debt ceiling.

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

#175

Post by nradov »

neaden wrote: post #103
brodouevencode wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Most of the decisions that get to the Supreme Court could reasonably be decided either way. If they were simple, clear decisions they wouldn't make it to the highest court after all. I don't necessarily think the original Chevron decision was the "correct" choice, or the "incorrect" choice, but it was the choice that was made and for 40 years Congress wrote laws and funded agencies on the assumption that that is how…

In any of those laws Congress passed in the past 40 years they could have taken the opportunity to codify the original Chevron decision into law. So the fault for any disruptions or bad outcomes lies entirely with them. Voters who are unhappy with the situation should complain to their members of Congress.

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

#176

Post by danlindley »

raytopia wrote: post #13

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

It would depend on the scope and extent that operations within an agency rely on their interpretation of the law. It will certainly be interesting to see the impact once the transitional period ends.

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

#177

Post by lolinder »

jhp123 wrote: post #139
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…

who says that conservative justices have no rhyme or reason? Everyone knows they work shamelessly to advance their conservative political goals.

That's the same kind of argument I'm talking about, though. If you just frame it as "to advance their conservative political goals" then you fail to fully understand this court and will continue to be surprised by what they decide.

This court has more than once ruled in a direction that conservatives would not like because the letter of the law required them to do so. Those instances just fail to make headlines and draw ire on social media.

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

#178

Post by lurking15 »

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"?

it's funny how progressive turn into conservatives, as though we need to cement whatever happened in the 70s

things clearly took a turn for the worse since then in many fundamental ways specific to the progressive "revolutions"

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

#179

Post by kemayo »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #158
kemayo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

I don't think that slavery and fiddly details of how regulations are interpreted are really comparable. Morally or practically.

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

#180

Post by jjk166 »

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…

That legal philosophy is a dog whistle. The fact is congress did write these laws, and they wrote them in this way with the understanding that they would be executed by the executive branch and interpreted by the courts as they have been for generations. Telling congress to go back and rewrite the laws, and to specifically rewrite them in a way that is wildly impractical, is simply striking laws from the books that the courts have no authority to actually strike down.
Post reply on HN