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

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701

Post by shawndrost »

rayiner wrote: post #598

The media's coverage of this as a "conservative win" is extremely misleading. This case is simply about whether agencies or judges should interpret what federal regulatory statutes mean. Chevron itself was written by five conservatives (and one democrat--with three other justices not participating) and overruled a decision authored by then D.C. Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She had sided with an environmental ad…

What an incredible coincidence that everyone -- the media, the judges who voted 6-3, and HN commenters like yourself -- sees this case along ideological lines!

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

#702

Post by sangnoir »

cmiles74 wrote: post #639
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…

Essentially every regulating agency will have to get their charter re-written and passed through Congress a second time. While that happens, we can expect to see a flood of cases decided under a variety of standards in lower courts. I think this is going to end up making real mess, it's definitely going to slow regulation and enforcement across the board.

> Essentially every regulating agency will have to get their charter re-written and passed through Congress a second time

More likely a limited subset of those agencies will survive that process due to ongoing efforts of folk whose self-confessed long-term goal is the "deconstruction of the administrative state". With this ruling, all they have to do is do nothing, or obstruct the passing of any law that attempts to return to the agencies what the supreme court stripped from them.

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

#703

Post by jameshart »

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…

Combined with yesterday’s ruling on administrative courts, this amounts to a massive increase in the role of the federal judiciary in the execution of government action.

By 2040 the normal procedure every April will be, rather than filing a tax return, filing a suit in federal court disputing the right of the IRS to determine whether your income is actually ‘income’. Eighty federalist society AI lawbots will automatically file amicus briefs in support of your case. The court clerkputer will autoschedule oral arguments at the first available date, around 2175.

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

#704

Post by [deleted] »

karmasimida wrote: post #535
kergonath wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not a question of good guys and bad guys. It’s just that a system where the legislative branch micro-manages things like electrical safety in new homes to what you’re allowed to put in baby formula is completely unworkable. If “the bad guys” get into power, then the agency is still checked by the courts that are perfectly able to stop blatant overreach. OTOH, congress physically cannot keep abreast of the sta…

The US health care is so expensive, is largely due to regulation like HIPPA that makes administrative cost astronomically high. It is not a good idea to have those agencies roam freely imposing regulation that they might not able to foresee the economic consequences

[deleted]

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

#705

Post by VincentEvans »

cryptonector wrote: post #700
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.

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.

Can court override the power of congress to put Chevron into law? Have there been instances where court struck down a law passed by congress before?

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

#706

Post by matrix87 »

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 there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress.

One could argue, similarly to overturning Roe, they're diverging from a very critical precedent which is going to trigger a flurry of lawsuits over the next couple years

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

#707

Post by cryptonector »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #686
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did the obstructionists grant themselves that power?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is self-limiting. You can gerrymander to increase your party's number of House seats from your state, or you can gerrymander to make your seats more secure, but you can't do both! You can make some seats more secure while others weaker so as to strike a balance between these two goals, but you won't get as many seats as if you optimized for seat count and you won't get as many safe seats as if you optimized for seat safety.

If you optimize for seat count then a wave election can easily turn many of those seats over to the other party, and with them control of the House.

If you optimize for seat safety then a wave election need only turn over a few of your seats to switch control of the House.

We have had lots of wave elections in the past 100 years: 1920, 1932, 1994, 2006, 2008, 2010. Three of those are in the past 20 years. Four in the past 30 years.

Gerrymandering isn't all it's cracked up to be. It cannot make any party impervious to wave elections.

This, anyways, only as long as all House districts in each state have roughly the same population.

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

#708

Post by chasd00 »

VincentEvans wrote: post #705
cryptonector wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can court override the power of congress to put Chevron into law? Have there been instances where court struck down a law passed by congress before?

i don't remember my government class exactly but i think the purpose of the us supreme court is to determine if a law is constitutional or not. I'm not sure if it can explicitly strike down a law but declaring it unconstitutional would be effectively the same.

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

#709

Post by catlikesshrimp »

cthalupa wrote: post #611
catlikesshrimp wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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 bala…

The already extremely powerful judiciary continually increasing their power and removing the power of the legislative and executive branches is not exactly something that encourages power balance checks. As for whether or not the person you are replying to is from a certain region of the planet - what are you trying to imply here? I'm from the USA - does that mean that I agree with everything Trump or Biden says? Thi…

There are political currents which critize traditional media and independence of powers. Like another current touting "A new world order" (offtopic)

The balance of powers is paramount. And it is usually the executive which grabs it when the oportunity arises: not only wars, but also exceptions like terrorism prevention (overblown) and the recent covid pandemic (all countries)

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

#710

Post by FactKnower69 »

masklinn wrote: post #477
MR4D wrote: post #458

Congress can’t write good laws (good = clean, unambiguous) due to a variety of reasons, most of which are just political and not practical reasons. Here’s hoping this decision causes Congress to write laws with more clarity now that they cannot be as sloppy and get away with it. There may be much upheaval in the short term, but for that reason alone, I think it will have a positive impact on the country. One other re…

> Congress can’t write good laws (good = clean, unambiguous) due to a variety of reasons, most of which are just political and not practical reasons. A massive reason in this case is that congress are not matter experts, laws are already large and unwieldy, and agencies need flexibility in their work as, as ponderous as they are, they're still more nimble than congress and need that in order to react to changes in th…

>I'm sure the individual will greatly benefit when the EPA's regulation of the next great carcinogen is struck down on grounds that congress has not explicitly restricted it.

This is the real motivation; the Lead Paint voting bloc is dying off and desperately needs replacing if current political demographics are to be maintained

Post reply on HN