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

181–190 of 1001 posts

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

#181

Post by rayiner »

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.

> "Separation of powers" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; it's a bootstrapped creature of power-seeking judges.

Article I, Section 1 says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Article II, Section 1 says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Article III, Section 1 says: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

Three specifically named powers, which are specifically assigned to three separate bodies, at the beginning of three separate sections. Gee, I wonder what the framers could possibly have been going with all this? I wish they had written papers elaborating on this concept that’s clearly reflected in the text: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10s14...

It’s hard to imagine anything that is more part of the constitution than separation of powers. If you handed the constitution and a copy of the federalist papers to an alien who knew nothing else about our society, they would understand that the constitution requires separation of powers.

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

#182

Post by Spooky23 »

stronglikedan wrote: post #154
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems unfair. They’re equally committed to denying women bodily autonomy.

[flagged]

Exactly.

Managing labor would be much easier if we could go back to constitutional principles as the founders intended and just own the workers.

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

#183

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#184

Post by ldf80g804 »

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.

[dead]

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

#186

Post by stronglikedan »

EricDeb wrote: post #151
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"?

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?

Because those experts haven't been able to craft unambiguous laws that aren't up for interpretation. There's nothing stopping congress from deferring to those experts still.

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

#187

Post by kergonath »

reaperman wrote: post #21
raytopia wrote: post #13

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

If Congress had a decent velocity/agility it would probably be okay. But their inability to pass laws in a timely fashion will make it very challenging for the federal government to keep up with societal changes.

Get ready for more of this sort of things being hidden in massive budget laws voted along party lines.

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

#188

Post by gpm »

kyrra wrote: post #141
rootusrootus wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

SCOTUS is governed by the constitution. All congress has control over is the purse (money paid to the justices), number of justices, and appointment of justices. SCOTUS rules are set out in Article III. If congress wants to change the rules of SCOTUS, they will need to amend the constitution. Note that congress does have power over all lower federal courts, as they were created by congress. SCOTUS is special here tho…

SCOTUS's appellate jurisdiction is subject to "such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" (Article III section 2 end of second paragraph) . Congress clearly and explicitly has the right to govern their powers as far as cases like this one go.

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

#189

Post by psunavy03 »

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'm not a lawyer, but I worked in a lawyer-adjacent job while in the military once and ever since I've followed the law as a bit of a hobby. Even with a small bit of training and experience, I'm not exaggerating by much when I say that the average person has absolutely no idea how the law is interpreted or how legal procedure works.

I really believe a large number of people view lawyers as the real-world equivalent of wizards or sorcerers from D&D. You say the right incantations, and then through either knowledge or force of will, something you want to happen happens through the force of magic.

In reality, even the six in the majority are still (for the most part) interpreting the law, not forcing their policy preferences on it. But people who don't understand how the whole system works (or that the Justices more often than not rule unanimously, if not 7-2 or 8-1) just see the policy outcome and either go "I like it, Court good," or "I hate it, Court bad and illegitimate."

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

#190

Post by tivert »

rootusrootus wrote: post #155
rufus_foreman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

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

I'm hearing a lot of "my-side likes this, therefore changing it is wrong." Liberals think it's the highest expression of the beauty of our republic when precedent is overturned to take things in a more liberal direction; but when precedent is overturned to take things in a different direction, they think it's an unjust violation of stare decisis and get outraged.

As understood (by liberals), the courts are a ratchet that moves things from less liberal to more liberal. To go the other way is evidence of inexcusable corruption and a threat to democracy itself, warranting urgent and extreme action to save society.

Post reply on HN