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…
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…
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
431–440 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#432Before proclaiming that this outcome is horrible - Please consider that the Good Guys (your opinion) might not win the election in November. And that you might not want the courts auto-deferring to all the plausible-ish interpretations of ambiguous laws which gov't agency officials appointed by the Bad Guys (your opinion) might suddenly add the Official Agency Interpretations next year.
That's not true for judges, so any damage by the Bad Guys lasts longer.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#433Devastating 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
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
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’…
> It’s a cycle of checks and balances that is supposed to loop back into itself. Except that the US doesn't have a functioning legislative branch, so the corrective feedback action never happens. The justices who are making these rulings, and their clients, are very well aware of this.
~"That's right, I want Congress dead-locked, I don't want any new laws passed!"
- David O. Sacks
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#436Earlier 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.
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
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#438Earlier 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…
(4) In lawsuits, the regulator should have to prove that the substance in question is fatal. The EPA will have published a list ahead of time and and if challenged it will be up to a court whether the EPA has correctly determined the lethality of the substance.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#439From 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…
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations will run roughshod over regulators and everyday citizens' lives will be measurably worse as a consequence.
Not at all. They can still be sued, and lawmakers can still make laws. (edited, originally mistakenly wrote "regulators" can still make laws, which is exactly the wrong thing)