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

801–810 of 1001 posts

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

#801

Post by dang »

jimbob45 wrote: post #495
dang wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't post generated comments.

Is there a reason you haven't added that to the FAQ yet? I don't know how that guy could have known not to use generated comments unless there was a sticky I missed.

More likely that would go in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html although the line between that and https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html is a bit blurry.

There are lots of established practices or conventions here that haven't been elevated to that level because we don't want to make those lists too long. At a certain point it would start to feel bureaucratic and that would be bad; also, the longer they are the less people will read them. Arguably one can derive 'no generated comments' from what's already there though I agree it's not entirely obvious.

The community has been doing a pretty good job of managing this issue though, so I'm not sure it needs officialization.

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

#802

Post by Dalewyn »

ModernMech wrote: post #655
Dalewyn wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. If Congress or Executive agencies don't want the judiciary interpreting the laws in various ways they should write laws with no room for interpretation. The couts giving/forcing (back) power to the legislature where laws are supposed to be written, deliberated, and passed is a very good thing.

Exactly how do you write a law that has no room for interpretation? What does that process look like exactly, and how do you achieve it at scale in a changing and dynamic world where the meanings of words change over time? I think what you’re saying is the equivalent of “just write software without bugs and everything will be fine” Yeah sure… but easier said than done.

Generally speaking, a specific law is always better than a vague law. It allows for more fairer enforcement and better understanding of the law concerned.

If the words written on paper don't actually mean anything and can be interpreted wildly, what is even the point of passing laws?

Writing and passing unnecessarily vague laws open to interpretation and saying your job is done is like Bethesda publishing a bug infested game and saying they have a finished product. No, your work is shit, go back to the workshop.

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

#803

Post by bonzini »

kelnos wrote: post #745
pas wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sorry, can someone explain this to someone who gave up on the article at the first bullet point, nor had enough sleep (and so is too lazy to look up everything) thanks!

Long ago Congress passed laws delegating a lot of rulemaking authority to the executive branch, the idea being that Congresspersons and their staff aren't deep-knowledge experts in most fields, and a lot of detailed rulemaking is best left to non-partisan career government employees (which, however, are usually guided by partisan political appointees, unfortunately). This is potentially dicey where the constitution i…

It's worth noting is that at the time the EPA's position was _in favor_ of Chevron, while the agencies right now tend to be a lot less corporation-friendly (hence the need to overturn the precedent, some say).

Also worth noting is that the head of the EPA at the time was Anne Gorsuch, mother of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

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

#805

Post by Dalewyn »

oceanplexian wrote: post #793
autoexec wrote: post #676

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…

> Congress can't actually legislate anything while it's held hostage by obstructionists That’s a feature, not a bug.

This. When the electorate is sufficiently divided or otherwise in the process of debate that there is no consensus, it is proper that the legislative bodies representing the electorate also likewise have no consensus with which to pass new legislation.

Also, this feature also works the other way: If Congress were to pass, say, abortion guarantees or Chevron Deference into law, then good luck trying to get them repealed. See also Obamacare, which hasn't been repealed after it was passed despite hell being raised.

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

#807

Post by rpmisms »

matrix87 wrote: post #706
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

[flagged]

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

#808

Post by TMWNN »

psunavy03 wrote: post #189
lolinder wrote: post #104

There's a tendency among certain people on HN to act like the conservative justices have no rhyme or reason and are just a bull running mindlessly through the china shop breaking precedent at random or specifically to hurt specific groups of people. I'm not a fan of every ruling that they've made, but this should have come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who's been paying any attention to the arguments that this…

I'm not a lawyer, but I worked in a lawyer-adjacent job while in the military once and ever since I've followed the law as a bit of a hobby. Even with a small bit of training and experience, I'm not exaggerating by much when I say that the average person has absolutely no idea how the law is interpreted or how legal procedure works. I really believe a large number of people view lawyers as the real-world equivalent o…

>I really believe a large number of people view lawyers as the real-world equivalent of wizards or sorcerers from D&D. You say the right incantations, and then through either knowledge or force of will, something you want to happen happens through the force of magic.

A classic example is how many people call any law they don't like "unconstitutonal". The logical corollary is that any law they like must be "constitutional".

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

#809

Post by JumpCrisscross »

TeeMassive wrote: post #636
HumblyTossed wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This is the goal. Want to pollute? You will soon when the EPA has no teeth.

This could go the other way. All agencies answer to the President. The President could just scrap all regulations or just not enforce them.

> All agencies answer to the President

Not independent agencies [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...

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

#810

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #805
oceanplexian wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress can't actually legislate anything while it's held hostage by obstructionists That’s a feature, not a bug.

This. When the electorate is sufficiently divided or otherwise in the process of debate that there is no consensus, it is proper that the legislative bodies representing the electorate also likewise have no consensus with which to pass new legislation. Also, this feature also works the other way: If Congress were to pass, say, abortion guarantees or Chevron Deference into law, then good luck trying to get them repeal…

Hard disagree. First, I'd say our system is more the exception that the rule. For example, most parliamentary systems don't take the "gridlock" approach, i.e. where you say "it is proper that the legislative bodies representing the electorate also likewise have no consensus with which to pass new legislation."

Instead, they basically give the side that controls parliament the ability to pass legislation, and if they fuck it up, they can get thrown out and another party has their turn - this is essentially exactly what is happening in the UK with the Conservatives getting kicked out of power.

The problem with this "eternal gridlock" is that, since Congress can't pass anything, basically the executive branch and the Supreme Court take over legislative roles, which I'd argue is worse. I.e. the executive branch makes a ton of executive orders, which if challenged get decided by the Supreme Court, basically leaving Congress out of it nearly entirely because that legislative body is so feckless.

Post reply on HN