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

281–290 of 1001 posts

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

#281

Post by xboxnolifes »

radley wrote: post #193
stronglikedan wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about the application of law. It's about the ambiguity of law. If anything, they'll need to rely on more expertise now, so they can craft laws that aren't open to interpretation. This is a fantastic decision on the part of the court.

> It's about the ambiguity of law. If anything, they'll need to rely on more expertise now, so they can craft laws that aren't open to interpretation. I doubt that granting Congress more power will inspire them to be less political, more responsible, and more governed by facts. Particularly when the party that made this decision has veered completely in the opposite direction. If anything, it will be used to prioriti…

Congress isn't being granted more power here. They're being granted more (their original) responsibility.

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

#282

Post by thethimble »

notabee wrote: post #248
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 be…

On the other hand, enabling the judicial and executive branch to overcompensate for this disfunction also seems problematic - particularly as the former groups aren’t elected (except for the President, of course).

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

#283

Post by xboxnolifes »

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?

Only if congress didn't expressly give the department the right to do so in legislation.

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

#284

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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.

> And lets the President know that his nominees for the 12 new positions will need to understand who's the real boss.

And who, in your view, is supposed to be the real boss? Congress? Or the President?

The Supreme Court is supposed to be independent. Changing that needs a much higher threshold than "bell-cot doesn't like some recent Supreme Court decisions".

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

#286

Post by mike_hearn »

notabee wrote: post #248
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 be…

Institutionally-declared experts are not exactly famous for their lack of partisan hackery, especially not in recent years.

> It just does not logically follow that putting more pressure on the legislative branch to be functional is going to work

You're talking like this is a political tactic or strategy used by the Supreme Court to achieve a specific outcome (which might "work" or "not work"), but it's not. Justices aren't meant to make such plans. They are supposed to do their job. If Congress does or doesn't do theirs, that isn't by itself the Court's problem nor something to which they should be the solution.

But it's also worth remembering that what "works" means varies a lot depending on perspective. There is plenty of stuff that is bipartisan in Congress and which they get done fairly quietly. Additionally, to the school of thought known as libertarianism, Congress not doing things is the desirable outcome and thus a gridlocked Congress is in fact the system working as designed, in the sense that it is being limited by the degree of agreement amongst voters on what it should do.

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

#287

Post by [deleted] »

epicureanideal wrote: post #6
jason2323 wrote: post #2

What is the significance of this

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.

[deleted]

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

#288

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#289

Post by rayiner »

locopati wrote: post #262
rayiner wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Show me where either of those things are in the constitution. Section number and clause please.

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

#290

Post by rayiner »

throw0101c wrote: post #246
rayiner wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

The early precedents were things like delegating to the customs department lists of items for tariff schedules. Virtually all the precedent reallocating the power to make law was upheld under the threat of court packing in the 1930s and is suspect and ripe for revisiting.
Post reply on HN