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

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dyauspitr wrote: post #23
epicureanideal wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Elected officials are idiots and at the whim of their constituencies. They can’t make reasoned, scientific regulations. Some lawmaker is going to call for dumping all PFAS into the local river for example.

Absolutely true.

But there's also a revolving door between the regulators and the companies they regulate. Sure, Congress is dysfunctional. But regulators are also flawed.

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

#233

Post by taylodl »

mp05 wrote: post #167
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

Perhaps this will cause us to start electing experts instead of lifelong politicians? The number of doctors, engineers, and scientists in Congress is pathetic.

Devil's advocate: isn't a lifelong politician an expert in politics? Isn't it the case that with so many noobs in Congress nothing is getting done because they simply don't know how to politic to get things done? All they know how to do is run to the nearest TV camera and start slandering everybody they don't like. Then they wonder why they can't broker deals to get what they want.

Besides, very few doctors, engineers, and scientists want to have anything to do with politics. They generally abhor the practice of politics and generally don't see it as a skill they need to develop. Without that skill, they'll be just as ineffective as the Congress we have today.

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

#234

Post by paulmd »

mmanfrin wrote: post #90
xbar wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would prefer if this conservative court would review the constitution and conclude that it must revoke its own right of judicial review.

Turns out the notions of jurisprudence they claim to represent is all a farce for pushing specific political agendas after all.

I was thinking yesterday what a mockery of the concept of justiceability some of their past decisions have made. Like the court is forced into a Sophie’s choice on whether to agree to let a Captain Planet villain go free or let the lawyers drain the fund. And the court could also just flatly do a “in a one-time non-precedent-setting ruling, those assets are obviously still under your control and companies cannot indemnify individuals against actual knowing wrongdoing”… but that would never be used in that way for the benefit of mere plebs.

But it does throw the whole idea of injusticeable claims right out the window. Bush had no claim at all, he literally still got thrown the election in a special one-time-ruling.

What they did was a valid exercise of their power, just an extremely distasteful one. Right? As such, they’re literally, by the text of the constitution, an unjusticeable claim. The concept is facially incoherent, the court can justice anything it wants.

The things they choose not to address, literally are because they’re things they don’t care about using their assumed powers to address. They literally invented the whole concept of a “one-off calvinball ruling” and formalized the concept already.

Just your friendly "textualist" wing at work.

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

#235

Post by mikeyouse »

rayiner wrote: post #148
mikeyouse wrote: post #121

Earlier 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.

I don’t understand this viewpoint. Remember, Chevron is only about who gets to make a final determination of what a Congressional statute means. How could it possibly be anybody else’s job other than the courts’ to make that decision? A far more accurate framing is that Chevron abdicated the courts’ duty to be the interpreter of statutes, which is one of the most fundamental aspects of being a court. This does not li…

I'd love to see where in the APA you feel that this is demanded and why during the interim 80 years of court decisions relying on the APA that no other court deemed it necessary.

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

#236

Post by throwawa14223 »

spanktheuser wrote: post #38
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.

Long term, I wonder if this destroys the Supreme Court. I see no reason why a future liberal majority would feel bound by any conservative precedent in the future. Replace respect for precedent with whatever position wins a majority and the incentive to pack the court seems irresistible.

The pendulum swings. For decades we had an activist progressive court and now we have an activist conservative court.

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

#237

Post by throw0101c »

epicureanideal wrote: post #125
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.

> 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.

Sometimes the reasoning is specious and a fig leaf (e.g., Heller); have no idea how good it is here.

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

#238

Post by [deleted] »

remarkEon wrote: post #207
consumer451 wrote: post #43

From Justice Kagan's dissent on page 82: > This Court has long understood Chevron deference to reflect what Congress would want, and so to be rooted in a presumption of legislative intent. Congress knows that it does not—in fact cannot—write perfectly complete regulatory statutes... > It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other…

> This Court has long understood Chevron deference to reflect what Congress would want, and so to be rooted in a presumption of legislative intent. Congress knows that it does not—in fact cannot—write perfectly complete regulatory statutes... I really hope she meant to convey a different point here, because it reads as if congress doesn't care and wants unelected bureaucrats figuring out what laws mean because they t…

[deleted]

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

#239

Post by psunavy03 »

twelfthnight wrote: post #230
psunavy03 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

The article mentions Clarence Thomas has been courted (even bribed?) by the very people paying the lawyers trying to overturn Chevron. I think it's naive to believe the judges don't have policy preferences that are strongly reflected in their rulings... If that wasn't the case the GOP wouldn't have blocked nominations from Obama to get their preferred judges in.

For sure, the President and Congress try to get Justices who agree with them. But you only have to go back to Anthony Kennedy and David Souter to realize that once they're on the Court, the Justices don't seem to ever feel beholden to the party or President that appointed them. George H. W. Bush appointed Souter, who ended up as one of the most reliably liberal Justices on the Court. Trump has been consistently smacked down by the very Justices he appointed.

And as sketchy as some of Thomas's dealings look, he's one of nine. Assuming for the sake of argument that he IS bought and paid for, you still need at least four other people to sign on to anything he says for it to be a ruling.

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

#240

Post by doctoboggan »

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…

I understand that one reason for the continuing of Chevron deference is that Congress has been writing laws for the past 4 decades assuming that the agencies can iron out the ambiguities.

I wonder if going forward congress can just try to have those agencies iron out the ambiguities before passing the law? Or is the idea that its impossible to anticipate all possible edge cases and congress wants to let the agency iron out future issue?

Post reply on HN