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

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

Post by ISL »

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…

With only a few minutes thought on the subject, it seems like Congress could explicitly amend the APA to state that the interpretation in Chevron is correct.

They might not do that, but from my initial non-expert read of today's opinion, the Court only looked to the APA, not the Constitution in generating its ruling.

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

#672

Post by sqeaky »

VincentEvans wrote: post #664

Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Just like congress can legislate abortion laws rather than leaving it to judicial precedence. Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress.

Fundamentally, people are suffering because the courts are acting for political expedience instead of doing and saying what's right and correct.

Congress should get its Act together, but one group acting in responsible is not license for another group to act irresponsible.

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

#673

Post by intended »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #658
anonymouse008 wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm thankful. Congress skirted their duties for 40 years. This legislative / executive codependency then created a tightly connected and interdependent governance system, outside the purview of the judicial 'checks and balances .' This is why things like warrantless mass tapping and the Patriot Act became 'good law.' We are unwinding decades of bad governance. This is a joyous occasion, along with the ACJ decision fr…

Exactly. If Congress seeks to regulate air, water, land, and space pollution, from American companies, they should appoint industry experts who intend to leave public sector jobs for lucrative private sector jobs by going to work for the companies the laws need to regulate. It’s worked great for politicians who become lobbyists or prosecutors who go work for big law. It’ll work great here too.

Absolutely! We should also make sure that no one in agencies is safe. It’s only the industries and courts which can do the work - only for a short while, you know, till congress gets less gridlocked.

Seeing how polarized and partisan things are, it will only be a few decades!

Plus seeing how some of the court positions have been, I can only think that lobbying is going to become a massive business ! So much growth!

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

#674

Post by sqeaky »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #386
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…

> So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This isn't accurate. Agencies will just need to work with Congress to help them write laws which make sense according to how the agency would like something to regulated.

Needing to go to someone else to exercise power is literally not having power.

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

#675

Post by erichocean »

kemayo wrote: post #92
Molitor5901 wrote: post #57

It Congress wants to change the law, they can. It's up to congress, not the administration, to make law. For decades it seems Congress has largely abdicated its legislative responsibility in exchange for the political ease of letting the administrative state, and the courts, make the law. Just because something has "precedence" doesn't mean it's right. Banning gay marriage had precedence, but that didn't make it righ…

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…

> it's also valid for Congress to decide to abdicate its powers

Yeah, that's a "no." Taking away power from voters and handing it to unelected bureaucrats is specifically what the Constitution is meant to protect against.

All legislative power in the government is vested in Congress, constitutionally. That power cannot be delegated to anyone, precisely because it would result in tyranny and disenfranchisement of voters (i.e. "us").

The only way to enable this is to amend the Constitution, which, if that's what voters want, they can do.

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

#676

Post by autoexec »

VincentEvans wrote: post #664

Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Just like congress can legislate abortion laws rather than leaving it to judicial precedence. Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress.

> Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power.

Congress can't actually legislate anything while it's held hostage by obstructionists and there's effectively zero chance that a bunch of republicans who want to dismantle the already inadequate regulations that keep entire communities from being poisoned will vote to remove their power to do exactly that through the supreme court.

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

#677

Post by genghisjahn »

mushufasa wrote: post #608

This is a complete disaster. The ramifications will be felt for decades. Now businesses must factor in the uncertainty of any random person launching a lawsuit that causes a local court to reverse a federal agency policy. Huge potential impacts to product / revenue, not just legal fees to fight everything. And immeasurable impacts of cowing all bold business decisions to avoid the ire of any person or group, no matte…

All of us are random people.

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

#678

Post by Mountain_Skies »

autoexec wrote: post #676
VincentEvans wrote: post #664

Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Just like congress can legislate abortion laws rather than leaving it to judicial precedence. Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress.

> Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Congress can't actually legislate anything while it's held hostage by obstructionists and there's effectively zero chance that a bunch of republicans who want to dismantle the already inadequate regulations that keep entire communities from being pois…

How did the obstructionists grant themselves that power?

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

#679

Post by sqeaky »

throwdown7653 wrote: post #647
dilippkumar wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This honestly sounds perfect. If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.

[flagged]

Downvoted.

At best the person you referring to is ignorant how reality works. But they are also indistinguishable from someone who doesn't value words at all and is lying for political gain.

Why should such be allowed?

Edit - and remember you're not allowed to downvote me because I'm being perfectly civil. But the only way to stop me is to downvote me or get the mods to censor me.

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

#680

Post by skywhopper »

VincentEvans wrote: post #664

Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. Just like congress can legislate abortion laws rather than leaving it to judicial precedence. Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress.

Likewise Congress could clearly state that agencies are not allowed to interpret the gaps. If Congress was unhappy with how the executive branch was working, it could solve the problem easily and directly. So the Court, when making this decision, was not concerned about what’s “right” or even Constitutional. It showed its hand by disrupting existing rulemaking that has been going on and explicitly allowed by the Court and implicitly granted by Congress for decades.

Changing the status quo on a fundamental de facto government structure is not good judiciating.

Post reply on HN