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

351–360 of 1001 posts

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

#351

Post by luddit3 »

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…

This is taking power away from regulator bodies like EPA that enforce the laws and giving it to the courts... taking the enforcement out of the hands of the experts.

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

#352

Post by TylerE »

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?

The only checks involved were in the mail, and almost certainly addressed to Clarence Thomas, who has taken more in bribes than the last 30 other justices combined, and that’s only the ones he’s been caught on.

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

#353

Post by ceejayoz »

twoodfin wrote: post #312
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

What does “expertise” have to do with whether Congress authorized fishermen to be charged for government-mandated inspectors?

Congress was pretty explicit about that; they wrote it in the legislation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/50/679.55

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

#355

Post by TylerE »

starkparker wrote: post #332
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…

> 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.

There’s no requirement for them to be a lawyer at all, or have any legal training.

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

#356

Post by psunavy03 »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #344
matthewdgreen wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress may be inefficient (by design, basically) but they have one advantage: they're elected . Everyone fantasizes about government by an unelected group of experts, until they wake up one day and find out those unelected experts don't share their values at all -- and there's nothing they can do about it.

[flagged]

The totally reasonable practice of "I lost the game, so I'm going to flip over the table and pull a gun."

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

#357

Post by psunavy03 »

luddit3 wrote: post #351
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…

This is taking power away from regulator bodies like EPA that enforce the laws and giving it to the courts... taking the enforcement out of the hands of the experts.

How is it "taking the enforcement out of the hands of the experts?" Judges are supposed to be experts on law. That's literally their job. If the parties before them feel that they need expert knowledge to render the right ruling, then they need to take those experts and either depose them or have them testify. Expert witnesses are a thing; this is not some new idea.

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

#358

Post by treflop »

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?

From my understanding of political science classes, this is how the founders wrote it to be.

Actually, it's supposed to be like this…

Congress writes laws. Executive interprets those laws and decides ambiguities on its own. Some of those ambiguities are contested so courts decide the outcome. If that court’s outcome is contested, then Congress makes a new ruling explicitly stating what they want. Then it repeats.

It’s a cycle of checks and balances that is supposed to loop back into itself.

Checks and balances is not a one time thing.

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

#359

Post by foota »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #158
kemayo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That said, it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers. We've had 40 years of Chevron deference, during which time Congress wrote laws expecting that this is how they'd be interpreted. If they didn't want this behavior, they could have passed laws about it. Or included some boilerplate language within new laws about how the agency has to defer to courts for interpretation of those regulations. (Gran…

[flagged]

Weren't both of these problems addressed by congress, not the courts?

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

#360

Post by vharuck »

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?

(IANAL, but here's my reading)

You can set them. The difference is, if the DOE is sued over that regulation, the court will make it's own judgement as to what the law intended. Should there be radiation exposure rules? If so, what should the levels be? How should they be measured? What is covered by those rules?

The DOE will get its say. But the court would be free to conduct its own research or give whatever weight it wants to the plaintiff's arguments for interpreting the law.

Post reply on HN