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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by dctoedt »

GenerWork wrote: post #153
Spivak wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

That's the Assume a Can Opener fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_a_can_opener

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

#262

Post by locopati »

rayiner wrote: post #196
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

Untrue. The way it will work now is that judges will focus on their expertise—interpreting what the laws mean. And agency experts will focus on their expertise—applying that law to specific factual scenarios.

do you mean the way judges support taking away bodily autonomy or pushing Christian ideas over a separation of church and state?

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

#263

Post by lovethevoid »

tmountain wrote: post #174
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.

That’s actually one both parties agree vehemently on, it just depends on who can get what they want most out of the approval.

It’s a negotiation tactic effectively, and no president wants to be behind the failure to do so, which leads to the opposing party having the upper hand to negotiate substantial wins in the process.

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

#264

Post by tzs »

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…

You've misunderstood what she's saying. For many issues it is not possible for Congress to write laws that are simultaneously completely unambiguous and actually deal with whatever issue they are trying to deal with. Actually applying the law almost always involves numerous decisions to fill in some of the gaps.

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

#265

Post by relaxing »

alex_young wrote: post #225
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…

Isn’t this really an argument about delegating authority? Chevron deference is about congress creating administrative agencies and delegating rule making to those agencies. There isn’t some separation of powers issue here, the idea is that where congress does legislate and an agency makes a reasonable interpretation of a nuance implicit in the law, these rules carry the weight of the law. For instance, congress manda…

It makes sense if you want to be able to dump new chemicals in the environment and count on your “small government” representatives to do nothing about it.

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

#266

Post by colejohnson66 »

cdaringe wrote: post #245

So if I work for the ohhh I dunno department of energy, and im working on rules for, uh, i dunno, radiation exposure. Does this mean that DOE cant what—set legally safe exposure levels? The court has to?

Or Congress

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

#267

Post by dubcanada »

bell-cot wrote: post #120
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?

Obvious check #1: Congress gets its sh*t together, and stops writing endless vague blather into law. Obvious check #2: Congress enlarges the Supreme Count to 21 Justices. And lets the President know that his nominees for the 12 new positions will need to understand who's the real boss.

Why stop at 21, why not get 1 supreme court from each state? You could get 2 if you wanted to be spicy and setup a sort of room for them all to debate in. Then after they heard the debates they could vote on the matter and if it passes it gets written into law. A sort of congress...

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

#268

Post by ndriscoll »

alex_young wrote: post #225
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…

Isn’t this really an argument about delegating authority? Chevron deference is about congress creating administrative agencies and delegating rule making to those agencies. There isn’t some separation of powers issue here, the idea is that where congress does legislate and an agency makes a reasonable interpretation of a nuance implicit in the law, these rules carry the weight of the law. For instance, congress manda…

In a sane world, if Congress were okay delegating their responsibility, presumably they'd be okay rubber stamping whatever agencies sent their way (with the advantage that they could more thoroughly review something controversial). If they're not okay rubber stamping, then I suppose they weren't actually okay with delegating their responsibility.

Like surely the EPA could send them a 1 sentence bill saying "amend section H paragraph III to add chemical X at 30 ppb", and they could have it passed in a day if they have that trust.

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

#269

Post by relaxing »

chatmasta wrote: post #111
shmerl wrote: post #7

Enabling corruption seems to be the primary agenda of this court these days.

Wouldn’t corruption be more likely to arise from a system where courts defer their decisions to mega-corporations and federal agencies?

Unlike SCOTUS federal agencies actually have to follow codes of ethics.

Deferring to megacorporations is in fact the outcome here since the justices know Congress will not act.

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

#270

Post by dctoedt »

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…

Yes, and what exactly is "the judicial Power"? Roberts, C.J., famously said that it was that of an umpire calling balls and strikes.

As a far-fetched analogy, Chevron deference is a bit like having a committee of uninvolved players and managers determining where the strike zone will be for each ballpark. If the team owners agree on such a meta-rule, then the umpires need to call balls and strikes based on that meta-rule, using the strike zones determined by the committee. It's not up to the umpires to decide that the owners can't delegate that authority to the committee.

Post reply on HN