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

331–340 of 1001 posts

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

#331

Post by toomuchtodo »

failuser wrote: post #173
jjk166 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Chevron, he complained, “ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in” and implements “massive change” in areas like securities law, communications law, and environmental law. New laws being enacted as governments change is not a shock to the system, it is business as usual. Overturning decades old precedents on the other hand...

I can’t help but to read this as “we need a life-long dictator so we will not have to deal with the results of the elections”

Conservatives will not go into the night quietly.

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

#332

Post by starkparker »

Xeoncross wrote: post #307
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 i…

> I would trust the nations top lawyers more than most of the congress members we have

If you're referring to the justices, who are approved by those Congress members you don't trust, it is a dramatic stretch to assume they are the nation's best lawyers.

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

#333

Post by vaadu »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #305
GenerWork wrote: post #86

This is unbelievably good news! It's time to move power out of the hands of bureaucrats back into Congress where it belongs.

Congress is one of the least effective institutions in this country

The purpose of Congress is to make these kinds of decisions. They pass the buck so they don't have a voting record that an election opponent can use against them.

They need to do their job.

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

#334

Post by bobthepanda »

brookst wrote: post #327
caseysoftware wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

It seems crazy that Congress does not have the authority to delegate implementation details to experts. I just don't see anything in the Constitution that forbids that.

It does, the problem is the law as written doesn’t explicitly say that and this court is all about textualism when convenient.

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

#335

Post by vundercind »

caseysoftware wrote: post #309
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.

As explained in the dissent, they literally have to delegate the kind of authority in question here. It’s the hostile-genie problem: you can’t close all the loopholes in some iron-clad unambiguous way in finite space.

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

#336

Post by vaadu »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #232
GenerWork wrote: post #86

This is unbelievably good news! It's time to move power out of the hands of bureaucrats back into Congress where it belongs.

Congress are the bureaucrats

Congress are the elected bureaucrats Agency folks are unelected bureaucrats

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

#337

Post by [deleted] »

p_j_w wrote: post #322
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.

>so they can craft laws that aren't open to interpretation. In what world is this even humanly possible? Is this something conservatives actually believe can happen? If so, then they're irrational almost beyond repair.

[deleted]

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

#338

Post by vundercind »

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.

One-per-circuit, at least, would be a good change. Not as many as you’re proposing, but does make sense.

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

#339

Post by goostavos »

snapplebobapple wrote: post #298
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…

i am sympathetic to desire to change how elections are handled (universal suffrage is a stupid idea without universal risk/ skin in the game, we need a way to make voters universally and roughly equal uncomfortable eith poor fiscal managment so they feel the pian when they vote thwmselves more stuff without also voting in a payment method) but its not happening. i also think you are mistaking long term corruption and…

>make voters universally and roughly equal uncomfortable eith poor fiscal managment so they feel the pian when they vote thwmselves more stuff without also voting in a payment method)

What does that look like in your mind?

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

#340

Post by zaphar »

brookst wrote: post #320
Xeoncross wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> because the large group of politicians can't get their act together and pass well-reasoned and descriptive laws How do you figure? This ruling says that Congress must be domain experts in every area, and agencies must merely implement the specific policies that Congress dictates. Is that even possible? For anyone? Sure, Congress is dysfunctional but so what? This new regime is unworkable, and it doesn't matter if i…

Congress people are supposed to hire and listen to domain experts in the field they legislate on.
Post reply on HN