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 951 posts

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

#801

Post by kergonath »

babyshake wrote: post #792
cryptonector wrote: post #672

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.

Isn't the only reason the Supreme Court would not sustain a law is because it is unconstitutional? And otherwise their only role is to interpret laws? At least that's the way it is supposed to be AFAIK.

But that’s not really how it works, is it? The court is more interested in pushing an agenda than playing its role in balancing the other branches of government. It’s obvious in the way they defer to precedent when it suits them and throw it aside when it does not.

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

#802

Post by Nasrudith »

ldf80g804 wrote: post #203
mp05 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this will cause us to start electing experts instead of lifelong politicians? The number of doctors, engineers, and scientists in Congress is pathetic.

I keep telling people. Make stochastic democracy happen, where every 4 years randomly selected individuals populate the house to have a simple yay/nay vote on senate generated items ( senate can stay as is ). I used to joke about it, but I no longer think I am.

The main problem with that approach is it makes rigging the 'elections' trivial when probabilistically every result is equally as plausible as another.

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

#803

Post by zmgsabst »

autoexec wrote: post #790
oceanplexian wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think there are many Americans who prefer a deadlocked and dysfunctional congress that is incapable of doing their jobs. We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way. There will always be some number of petty people who don't care what the costs are as long as "their team" isn't allowing the "other team" a win, and those who don't want the…

> We have a lot of things that need doing in this country which can't get done when obstructionists stand in the way.

I think calling people who oppose your policy ideas “obstructionists” is a neat ad hominem, as if the only reasonable position is yours.

What you’re lamenting is that you can’t force an agenda without people agreeing — and when they refuse to agree with you, your agenda can’t happen. While you say “most Americans”, factually, you lack a majority for your agenda: you’re a minority trying to impose itself.

That’s democracy.

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

#804

Post by ncarlson »

anonymouse008 wrote: post #631
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…

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…

What is "the ACJ decision from last session"? For that matter, what is ACJ?

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

#805

Post by latency-guy2 »

saboot wrote: post #464
neaden wrote: post #3

This court continues to make decisions that might be defensible if you were making them for the first time, but go against decades of precedent in which time many laws have been written on the assumption that things would work a certain way. For a group that claims to be holding to tradition they sure are willing to throw things into chaos.

It's not even years of precedent, they contradicted themselves on this decision today in their separate ruling on allowing public sleeping bans. Roberts said "Why would you think that these nine people are the best people to judge and weigh those policy judgements?". SCOTUS follows tradition when it suits their lobbied interests, and disregards tradition if it contradicts them.

This reads more like interpretation is at fault rather than the actual ruling. The SC ruled in favor of the state(s), as in the fining for that reason is not unconstitutional or an overreach.

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

#806

Post by yaksha »

kelnos wrote: post #723
granzymes wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I liked this section of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence: > How bad is the problem? Take just one example. Brand X concerned a law regulating broadband internet services. There, the Court upheld an agency rule adopted by the administration of President George W. Bush because it was premised on a “reasonable” interpretation of the statute. Later, President Barack Obama’s administration rescinded the rule and replaced it…

I agree with Gorsuch's overall point, but he's also writing it knowing full well that today's Congress is not equipped to do all that rulemaking, and not equipped to agree on and pass the huge volume of legislation that would be necessary to duplicate all that rulemaking within the legislative branch. And he's ok with this, because his political ideology is such that fewer regulations and less rulemaking is a good th…

Are those rules necessary? Do those rules have to be implemented at the federal level? Can the states take responsibility for some of the items instead?

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

#807

Post by kolbe »

VincentEvans wrote: post #671
kolbe wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, for example, the SEC has used a law from 80 years ago about retaining memos as justification for billions in fines against companies whose employees used whatsapp to say "the market is crazy" (or similarly benign things). All they did was "fill in a gap" to make this totally new law.

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

#808

Post by chrismaeda »

One of the issues that led to this decision is regulatory overreach. Standard example is the clean air act which regulated air pollution. Years later the EPA decided that green house gases were air pollutants that could be regulated under the act. Then they tried to say that CO2 was a pollutant, and businesses started to fight back hard.

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

#809

Post by StarterPro »

VincentEvans wrote: post #640

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.

And we could all win the lottery, but let's not pretend half of the elected officials aren't brainwashed and the other half are so deep in pockets they use lint as a throw rug.

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

#810

Post by Karrot_Kream »

edmundsauto wrote: post #753
HumblyTossed wrote: post #617

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.

Do you think states will be able to enforce their own pollution restrictions? If so, life in blue states will get comparatively better - I say this as someone who remembers the awful Los Angeles pollution effects of the 1980s.

This is where things can get very complicated. CARB in California, the body that governs emissions, is only possible because the Clean Air Act gives California a specific waiver to enforce stricter emissions standards than the EPA. Is this overreach by the EPA, and if so, can CARB even continue to exist in California?

EDIT: It seems to me like it'll be business as usual for CARB but there's significant uncertainty here. The Supremacy Clause forbids the states from overwriting federal law, but if the EPA loses its enforcement powers altogether then nothing stops California from continuing to exert more stringent emissions standards. However it'll create a lot of uncertainty for automakers if the EPA and CARB is challenged on the grounds of regulating emissions and I'm not looking forward to what would happen next.

Post reply on HN