[flagged]
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
421–430 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
There's no federal constitutional requirement for anyone to have legal training or certification to practice law in the USA.
The requirements to practice law in the federal system are set by the judiciary itself. This dates back to England where getting "called to the bar" meant the judge giving you permission to go to a physical bar separating the spectators from the court.
It wouldn't make sense to mandate judges to be lawyers if they decide who is and isn't a lawyer. That would give the judicial branch control over their own appointments.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#423From 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…
To put it a bit differently: Congress has not been able to pass substantial laws in decades. The executive branch has filled in by interpreting these laws very loosely in order to adapt to the changing situation and—importantly—to adapt to changing presidencies. That last part is the single biggest problem with the administrative regime as it has stood hitherto: it means that almost everything that happens in the fed…
It won't force Congress to do shit. The same flip flop will still happen, but instead of 4-year executive terms, it will be driven by lifetime court appointments. The court is going to remain Republican for the foreseeable future, unlike the presidency.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#424What is the significance of this
FDA finds food factory to be non compliant with food safety standards. FDA can't shut down the factory. It has to take it to court. A Judge with a JD or a jury of random people will decide if the factory can stay open. Factory stays open. Millions of people eat salmonella contaminated food.
With hack judges like Aileen Cannon, good luck!
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#425From 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…
To put it a bit differently: Congress has not been able to pass substantial laws in decades. The executive branch has filled in by interpreting these laws very loosely in order to adapt to the changing situation and—importantly—to adapt to changing presidencies. That last part is the single biggest problem with the administrative regime as it has stood hitherto: it means that almost everything that happens in the fed…
And imagine how our allies feel. If you can’t count on the U.S. for more than about 3 years at a time, then you quickly move away from them and insure you aren’t so tied to them that a foreign election suddenly makes you vulnerable. Which then makes everyone weaker as a whole and easier to pick off.
Which is why U.S. foreign adversaries have been actively sowing chaos for a decade.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#426This 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…
But, this decision didn't take those powers from Congress. It took those powers from federal agencies. Congress empowers the agencies, yes. But, Congress also deferred any technical decisioning to the agencies. Those agencies are filled with actual experts who are fully committed to their field. Now, the court just said that those experts aren't the right place to enforce anything but judges are.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#427From 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…
To put it a bit differently: Congress has not been able to pass substantial laws in decades. The executive branch has filled in by interpreting these laws very loosely in order to adapt to the changing situation and—importantly—to adapt to changing presidencies. That last part is the single biggest problem with the administrative regime as it has stood hitherto: it means that almost everything that happens in the fed…
I used to hold this. I can't put a finger on what exactly changed. I strongly believe Congress is productive enough, and the ambiguity around this sort of thing is good, because it allows flexibility in the face of changing circumstances.
With such a vibrant public democracy as America, things that drag out, like allowing non-competes for fast food workers, are best served with public participation, a long process, and sunlight.
It's not as tightly coupled to a presidential administration as you may think, that's where "Deep State" grumbling comes in: if it's imposed by presidential fiat, its in violation of a 1000 mundane things that courts have historically consistently enforced: a long, public, process with a thorough cost/benefit analysis that indicates a net benefit. So, the "Deep State" (administrative processes that are required to occur for a rule change at an administrative agency, to whom authority was delegated to by the legislature) prevents a unilateral presidency.
Parsing through the FTC press release on non-competes provides some indica of the sunlight/processes involved. [1]
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/...
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
People on this thread are talking as if this decision stops Congress delegating powers to the executive, or the executive drafting laws for Congress to pass. It clearly does neither. It's actually constitutionally entirely reasonable to demand that lawmakers are the people who make law, because there's no specific reason to assume that the volume of laws should naturally drown the people responsible for them. But eve…
The "volume of laws" required to regulate a complex modern society is far greater than that required for the US 200+ years ago. Thats why successful nations use rule-making agencies to regulate commerce, environmental protection, workplace safety, etc. Expecting the legislature to do it all is just not going to scale - which I suspect is the objective. The people behind these decisions want an overloaded, ineffectual legal system because that creates the best conditions for unrestricted accumulation of wealth and power.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#429Earlier 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.
How do you imagine a liberal majority would come about within the next few decades? This was engineered over decades and now the conservatives have all the marbles; that's why they feel so free to rule how they've always wanted.
I imagine you’d need circumstances similar to those that nearly resulted in the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which would have granted Roosevelt the ability to appoint 6 additional Supreme Court Justices. Namely:
- National crisis unifying popular support for liberal legislation. - Liberal control of the executive and legislative branches. - A series of supreme court rulings that effectively thwart a popular liberal agenda.
I have no idea if this is likely; however it nearly happened less than a century ago during a period with noticeable parallels to our circumstances today.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
"Perfectly complete" is a pretty high bar. For example, consider a law directing the EPA to fine violators who dump "fatal substances". How complete is complete enough? That leaves us with some options, such as these ones which I'm ordering from "most reasonable" to "most insane": (1) In lawsuits, courts should generally assume that the lawmakers have given the EPA permission to create a formal list and judgement cri…
The most reasonable option would be for congress to explicitly put in the bill that the EPA (or some other group of experts) makes the list. I’m no legal expert but in your example it sounds like that’s all that’s needed.