851–860 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except this and other rulings mean there's no such thing as "solid precedent" anymore.
The moment a court is asked to make a decision on one of these matters there will then be case-building precedent. What your comment suggests is that there will _never_ be 'solid precedent' which is an inaccurate interpretation.
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…
There's no harm from denying somebody an abortion when they're not pregnant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose Congress could use its power under Article III’s Exceptions Clause to strip the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) of jurisdiction to hear cases challenging an agency’s adherence to its enabling statute. Courts would still always be able to hear constitutional challenges, of course.
And wouldn't this court still take this kind of challenge on constitutional grounds? That congress has no power to give legislative authority to an executive agency?
If Congress thinks they shouldn’t have to do the work of legislation, then they can all quit and we can elect people who are willing to do the job we elect them to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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
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…
If his complaint is the back-and-forth, this is certainly a look-in-the-mirror moment for Gorsuch and the present court, who've sure made their own notable contributions to whipsaw governance dynamics lately. If his complaint is that there's an executive discretion in executing the law or the expectation should be that congressional force only goes as far as its ability to write micromanagement into statute then it's…
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.
They could--but in the case of the Administrative Procedures Act, which is the law relevant to this case, they didn't. Indeed, as the Court's opinion points out, they did the opposite: the Act explicitly says that the courts shall interpret the law when doing so becomes necessary to resolve a case.
Note that this actually limits the scope of this ruling in a way that does not appear to be recognized by commentators. The Court here is not saying that Congress can no longer pass a law that explicitly grants interpretive power to an executive branch agency. It's just saying that Congress did something different with this law.
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.
Sounds like green house gases are pollutants.
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…
California has spent over $100bn to build 1600 ft of high speed rail over a decade. And it wasn't Republican obstructionists who caused that.
There are too many regulations.
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.