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

Post by watwut » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 9:30 PM UTC

VincentEvans wrote: post #695

skywhopper wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by philips » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 9:30 PM UTC

jkic47 wrote: post #719

matrix87 wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

That was actually addressed on Page 7 of the decision. They begin with "The stare decisis considerations most relevant here—“the quality of [the precedent’s] reasoning, the workability of the rule it established,..." and proceed to find the considerations "all weigh in favor of letting Chevron go" https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf If you read the decision on abortion, you will find they spen…

Post by s1k3s » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 9:32 PM UTC

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #727

s1k3s wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where I'm from, our "supreme court" can overthrow congress legislation for not following the constitution. Is this the case here AND is this the case in the US (generally speaking)?

Yes, that's exactly how it works. The US Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional, and that's that.

Post by staticman2 » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 9:33 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #730

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's exactly how it works. The US Supreme Court can rule a law unconstitutional, and that's that.

Little known fact: Congress can actually legislate around that by removing the possibility of judicial review from the law itself.

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Jun 28, 2024, 9:36 PM UTC

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…