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

241–250 of 1001 posts

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

#241

Post by throw0101c »

agensaequivocum wrote: post #152
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.

> The constitution mandates that the courts interpret the law.

The idea of Congress delegating certain powers dates back to 1825:

* https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html

Further precedents from the 1920s and 1930s (and more recent) are listed in the above link. It's not a new idea that some ambiguities are left to the Executive to figure out.

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

#242

Post by epoxia »

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…

For context. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas; who are still on the court were dissenting opinions on the gay marriage decision. Seeming to favor "precedence" when it's convenient.

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

#243

Post by jibe »

TylerE wrote: post #150
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…

They've been very consistent. They ram through whatever the Heritage Foundation (boy, if there was ever a truly evil org with a misleading name) tells them to. That's how they got selected. Heritage literally gave Trump a list of acceptable names, all members.

You are confusing Heritage and Federalist Society. Federalist put together the list of judges that was used for nominations in Trump’s first term.

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

#244

Post by bell-cot »

kergonath wrote: post #163
bell-cot wrote: post #93

Before proclaiming that this outcome is horrible - Please consider that the Good Guys (your opinion) might not win the election in November. And that you might not want the courts auto-deferring to all the plausible-ish interpretations of ambiguous laws which gov't agency officials appointed by the Bad Guys (your opinion) might suddenly add the Official Agency Interpretations next year.

That is not a question of good guys and bad guys. It’s just that a system where the legislative branch micro-manages things like electrical safety in new homes to what you’re allowed to put in baby formula is completely unworkable. If “the bad guys” get into power, then the agency is still checked by the courts that are perfectly able to stop blatant overreach. OTOH, congress physically cannot keep abreast of the sta…

Currently, in the minds of much of the American electorate, it is good guys and bad guys.

You are correct that the US Constitution is poorly suited to governing a nation of ~1/3 billion people in the modern world. Unfortunately, the current political environment make fixing things impossible.

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

#246

Post by throw0101c »

rayiner wrote: post #181
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.” Ar…

The idea of Congress delegating certain powers dates back to 1825, with further precedents from the 1920s and 1930s (and more recent):

* https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html

It's not a new idea that some ambiguities are left to the Executive to figure out.

The Chevron decision was basically a codification of what had been done for decades before it.

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

#247

Post by throw0101c »

cogman10 wrote: post #157
bbayles wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Everyone deferred to the agencies.

Delegating goes back to about 1825, and deferring ambiguities to the Executive has precedents to the 1920/30s:

* https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html

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

#248

Post by notabee »

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…

Unless the way elections are handled changes, such as doing anything that selects for expertise instead of partisan hackery, all this is going to do is accelerate the gridlock, corruption, and dysfunction. It just does not logically follow that putting more pressure on the legislative branch to be functional is going to work when its functionality or lack thereof is based largely on a very gerrymandered population being blasted non-stop by a completely co-opted, corrupt media. When the corruption and control is so thoroughly embedded already, the difference between "unelected official" and "party-and-special-interest-approved elected official" becomes a silly fig leaf of a difference.

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

#249

Post by TylerE »

jibe wrote: post #243
TylerE wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've been very consistent. They ram through whatever the Heritage Foundation (boy, if there was ever a truly evil org with a misleading name) tells them to. That's how they got selected. Heritage literally gave Trump a list of acceptable names, all members.

You are confusing Heritage and Federalist Society. Federalist put together the list of judges that was used for nominations in Trump’s first term.

No I'm not.

https://www.heritage.org/impact/supreme-court-nominee-brett-...

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

#250

Post by trealira »

megaman821 wrote: post #205
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.

If Congress had their shit together enough to reign in the federal courts, there wouldn't be so many federal laws that were ambiguous in the first place. Not sure what the shockwaves of this Chevron decision will be, but I am a fan of forcing the legislative branch to legislate again.

This isn't going to make Congress write more legislation. No politician that was extremist is going to start compromising and proposing legislation. This simply shifts power from the executive branch to the judicial branch. It just makes the question of which party appoints federal judges even more important in the outcome of senate/presidential elections.
Post reply on HN