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

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

Post by intended »

psunavy03 wrote: post #357
luddit3 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The courts are HIGHLY ideologically divided.

Take a look at the recent Murthy verdict and Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion.

The point is to avoid “experts”.

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

#512

Post by impalallama »

pininja wrote: post #54

I was curious about cases where this played a role. Looks like the namesake case was about EPA Clean Air Act enforcement in the 80s (the outcome being regulation), and then an FCC ruling to classify internet providers as “information services” rather than “telecommunication services” and avoid stricter regulation (the outcome being deregulation). Overall, it seems the Chevron deference was a cornerstone of administra…

It seems like the biggest outcome is that as we all know Congress can't pass laws, so the judicial system just go a huge amount of power to interpret ambiguous laws (I'm not sure how controversial this but language is inherently ambiguous...).

I expect a lot of court shopping to judges in Texas to get favorable result to abscond with any regulatory oversight

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

#513

Post by Retric »

mike_hearn wrote: post #416
consumer451 wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a legal dilettante I have some questions: What does this decision mean for court caseload going forward? If it will increase, how much? Is there budget for that?

It doesn't mean anything for court caseload. There seem to be a lot of posts in this thread that are misinterpreting what the judgement means. Here's what I understood from reading it: • This case does not affect Congress' ability to delegate defined lawmaking powers to the executive. Congress can continue to delegate whatever they want. • It will therefore not have any impact on the speed with which the US governmen…

Case load is simply the number of active cases and therefore not limited to the number of cases but also includes how long each case takes to complete.

As this requires judges to consider a wider range of options it inherently means these cases will take longer thus increasing caseload. Further, it also means bringing these cases before the court will get more expensive as individual cases take longer.

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

#514

Post by annoyingnoob »

Judges are appointed, not elected. Federal Judges receive lifetime appointments.

This decision takes power away from elected officials and hands the power to appointed officials, officials appointed for life.

Conservatives have played the long after to Roe to attempt to stack the courts with conservative judges. This is how we got to the Supreme Court that we have now.

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

#516

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

RIMR wrote: post #505
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #490

Why did the Supreme Court invent Chevron deference 40 years ago? To serve corporations. It's not called "Chevron" because it's about inverted V's, after all. The EPA wanted to interpret the law in a way that Chevron liked and the Natural Resources Defense Council did not like, so the Supreme Court said "no, no, the EPA gets to decide, we are but poor unqualified judges." Why did the Supreme Court take it away? Becaus…

This is pretty much direct irrefutable evidence that the SCOTUS has been corrupted. The extreme ideological tilt is disturbing enough, but it's clear that these judges answer to the highest bidder, not the American people or the intent of the Founding Fathers.

If the spirit of the ruling originally by the SCOTUS was to benefit corporations , and they overturned it because it was no longer benefiting corporations - are they really corrupted? Or just business as usual?

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

#517

Post by catlikesshrimp »

hindsightbias wrote: post #452
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…

> easily dispose of 40 years As I tried to explain to people in 2016, your kids are going to be living with the consequences of your vote for generations. We are in a new era of judicial supremacy and they are out of bubble gum.

>"We are in a new era of judicial supremacy"

Are you from Latin America?Martinelli (Panama) has been complaining of "Civil Dictatorship" since being on trial and hidden inside the Nicaraguan Embassy. Chavez (Costa Rica) is denouncing a Democratic "Dictatorship then Tyranny" because he finds independece of powers (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) cumbersome.

Dangerous direction, people complaining about power balance checks

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

#518

Post by soerxpso »

RIMR wrote: post #505
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #490

Why did the Supreme Court invent Chevron deference 40 years ago? To serve corporations. It's not called "Chevron" because it's about inverted V's, after all. The EPA wanted to interpret the law in a way that Chevron liked and the Natural Resources Defense Council did not like, so the Supreme Court said "no, no, the EPA gets to decide, we are but poor unqualified judges." Why did the Supreme Court take it away? Becaus…

This is pretty much direct irrefutable evidence that the SCOTUS has been corrupted. The extreme ideological tilt is disturbing enough, but it's clear that these judges answer to the highest bidder, not the American people or the intent of the Founding Fathers.

What? Some guy making a vague statement on a web forum with nothing concrete to back it is "direct, irrefutable evidence"? I'd like to see any evidence at all that any SCOTUS judge is actually profiting from this decision in any way. Chevron was corrupt 40 years ago; overturning it is not, or at least isn't more corrupt than the decision originally was in the first place.

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

#519

Post by lefstathiou »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #490

Why did the Supreme Court invent Chevron deference 40 years ago? To serve corporations. It's not called "Chevron" because it's about inverted V's, after all. The EPA wanted to interpret the law in a way that Chevron liked and the Natural Resources Defense Council did not like, so the Supreme Court said "no, no, the EPA gets to decide, we are but poor unqualified judges." Why did the Supreme Court take it away? Becaus…

Per the written opinion, Congress started purposely drafting vague laws with the intent of having them interpreted by unelected (politically appointed) officials in a manner that best suited their agenda.

So it seems reasonable to me that once the circumstances change (or we have more data), so would the law. It was a nice experiment, I'm glad we tried it, now we know people are people, and thankfully it's mostly done.

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

#520

Post by refurb »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #284
bell-cot wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> And lets the President know that his nominees for the 12 new positions will need to understand who's the real boss. And who, in your view, is supposed to be the real boss? Congress? Or the President? The Supreme Court is supposed to be independent . Changing that needs a much higher threshold than "bell-cot doesn't like some recent Supreme Court decisions".

Indeed.

Despite FDR being quite popular with his New Deal laws, his own party was prepared to toss his ass out for trying to stack the Supreme Court in order to keep parts of his New Deal alive.

It would be political suicide for either side to do that.

Post reply on HN