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

301–310 of 1001 posts

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

#301

Post by adamc »

mike_hearn wrote: post #286
notabee wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think few who have watched the court think it is anything but a strategy used to work toward specific outcomes.

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

#302

Post by HDThoreaun »

rswail wrote: post #99

I'm impressed that they can so easily dispose of 40 years of law making by Congress that assumed that agencies would interpret the statutes and make rules for regulating their area of authority. Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. Awesome logic work, but terrible legal thin…

Congress can still delegate chevron style. They just have to explicitly do so

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

#306

Post by Avshalom »

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…

https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-136/the-imperial-supr...

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

#307

Post by Xeoncross »

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?

If you ignore the labels here, it's a small group of lawyers giving themselves more power because the large group of politicians can't get their act together and pass well-reasoned and descriptive laws.

So the large body isn't functioning well and the small body doesn't trust it anymore. So if we make the small body (the supreme court) large like the large body (congress) will that actually fix the issue?

Isn't the issue that politicians are corrupt and ignorant of actual expertise in the areas of the laws they pass? How will the Supreme Court overcome this same issue?

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

#308

Post by shrubble »

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?

Chevron has only been around since 1984. What was done previously?

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

#309

Post by caseysoftware »

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?

> "This seems like the judicial branch just voted to give itself substantially more power. Are there any checks against this?"

Yes, absolutely.

Congress can do their job and write the laws instead of delegating their authority to the Executive Branch.

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

#310

Post by bitwize »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #110
spanktheuser wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There was a 7-2 liberal majority during the 1970s. They didn't feel bound by precedent either. That's how we got, for example, Roe v. Wade . (No, there was no precedent for "a penumbra" of privacy giving a right to abortion in any previous court decisions. And whether you like the decision is orthogonal to whether the court was making stuff up completely outside the realm of precedent.) Conservatives aren't doing som…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN