Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
691–700 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#692I'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…
Congress can still delegate chevron style. They just have to explicitly do so
The fact that Chevron has been the law of the land for 40 years means that Congress did intend for it to continue to be the case. It’s ridiculous to claim otherwise.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#693Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s lobbyist who will fill this gap
Lobbyists will fill the gap, and 70+ year old judges will rule on the intricacies of nuclear regulation by harkening back to 15th century English law.
It's so funny when people from common law countries pretend like they have a functioning legal system
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#694Congress 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.
acting for political expedience? They are making heavily impactful, politically unpopular moves to correct what they believe to be long term errors buried in court precedent.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#695Congress 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 Cour…
I am not surprised that conservative-leaning court has put their finger on the scale of what they always described as “activism of agencies” and “legislating from the bench” by pushing the congress to act - I see it as consistent with conservative principles.
I am not saying I agree with it or condemn it - rather stating the path forward.
I too would like congress to start acting the part. They have the tools.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#696Earlier quoted context omitted.
This basically flips the judicial review logic from "did the regulator act within the scope of the law?" to "are there other ways the regulator could have acted that would also be within the scope of the law? If so, the judge decides which set of actions the regulator must take" I.e., anything Congress does not explicitly state in a law is now determined by federal judges. At the extreme, this is aggrandizing a very…
The entire purpose of the judiciary is to interpret the law. This is what they are supposed to do. Chevron curtailed this essential power in favor of taking an agency at its word, which is quite a dangerous stance.
The agencies still had to act within their bounds, and they have a lot more relevant expertise than effectively-random judges.
Plus centralizing it makes things much more clear and consistent.
Hell, if we just took regulatory agencies and put judges in charge somehow that would be a lot better than chaos mode.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#697I think it's good that courts will no longer have to defer to federal agencies granting themselves powers "because we say so." This will stop mission creep of the federal regulatory agencies and correct a long term error in court precedent. The Supreme Court is doing its job.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#698I'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…
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…
> Congress skirted their duties for 40 years.
Delegation dates back to (at least) the early 1900s:
> Since 1935, the Court has not struck down a delegation to an administrative agency.15 Rather, the Court has approved, without deviation, Congress's ability to delegate power under broad standards.16 The Court has upheld, for example, delegations to administrative agencies to determine excessive profits during wartime,17 to determine unfair and inequitable distribution of voting power among securities holders,18 to fix fair and equitable commodities prices,19 to determine just and reasonable rates,20 and to regulate broadcast licensing as the public interest, convenience, or necessity require.21
* https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html
And from 1825:
> It will not be contended that Congress can delegate to the Courts, or to any other tribunals, powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative. [23 U.S. 1, 43] But Congress may certainly delegate to others, powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself.
* https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23/1.html
Delegation is a key component of governance and predates the US with Ministers of the Crown, and once the the US was formed with Secretaries/Directors/etc, all of latter which are approved by the US Legislative branch through (e.g.) Senate-approved appointments.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#699Congress 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.
This isn't actually clear. The duty to legislate arguably cannot be transferred... even with legislation.
Valid point! I’d like to hear more regarding this concern. While I don’t necessarily view what I referred to as “interpreting the gaps” as synonymous with “legislate”, IANAL and would appreciate professional opinion here.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#700Congress 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.
The court decided this on statutory grounds because that's what this court likes to do: base decisions on the narrowest grounds possible. But it mentioned Marbury quite prominently and it's pretty clear that the court will not sustain a law that codifies Chevron.