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

Post by DowsingSpoon » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 7:24 PM UTC

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…

Post by jf22 » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 7:25 PM UTC

itsdavesanders wrote: post #425

lolinder wrote: post #406

Earlier 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.

Post by w10-1 » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 7:27 PM UTC

consumer451 wrote: post #43

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…

Post by AmericanChopper » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 7:29 PM UTC

aklemm wrote: post #102

bell-cot wrote: post #93

Before 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.

From either side, relying on the judiciary over active, well-functioning legislature is bad.

Post by jf22 » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 7:30 PM UTC

kogus wrote: post #567

crazygringo wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why can't Congress write complete regulatory statutes? Isn't that literally their job? Yes, it is. No, it's not. That's like saying it's the CEO's job to write every design document in a company. It not only doesn't make sense -- it's not even possible from a perspective of information throughput. It sounds like you're saying that Congress should approve drugs rather than the FDA. Absolutely not. Congress should wr…

I do not expect Congress to atomically approve or disapprove every regulatory action. That is a straw man. I expect them to write clear laws that state what agencies can do, what they cannot do, and how they should do it. The case before the court is a good example of how the opaque and unaccountable nature of a federal agency allows them to serve their own self-interest at the expense of the citizens they are suppos…