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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by fallingknife »

azemetre wrote: post #717
VincentEvans wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you expect Congress to legislate when one side refuses to legislate?

Refuses to legislate in the way that you want them to. There is, in fact, plenty of legislation.

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

#902

Post by throw0101c »

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…

> Long ago Congress passed laws delegating a lot of rulemaking authority to the executive branch […]

By "long ago" the delegation was first mentioned (AFAICT) in 1825:

> It will not be contended that Congress can delegate to the Courts, or to any other tribunals, powers which are strictly and exclusively legislative. [23 U.S. 1, 43] But Congress may certainly delegate to others, powers which the legislature may rightfully exercise itself.

* https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/23/1.html

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

#903

Post by nradov »

eigen wrote: post #878
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress can't actually legislate anything Did you miss the hundreds of billions of dollars of legislating the Congress did this year?

seems they are legislating less and less by the Congress. The list of acts of the 115th United States Congress includes all Acts of Congress and ratified treaties by the 115th United States Congress, which began on January 3, 2017, and ended on January 3, 2019. The 115th Congress enacted 442 statutes and ratified 6 treaties. The 116th United States Congress, which began on January 3, 2019, and ended on January 3, 202…

Is volume of legislation the correct measure? That seems analogous to clueless managers trying to measure the productivity of software developers by lines of code written.

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

#904

Post by chrisco255 »

underlipton wrote: post #874
dehrmann wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just like congress can legislate abortion laws That might violate the 10th Amendment since it wasn't explicitly delegated to the federal government.

A wild 14th Amendment appears (they hate that one, too).

The part where it says "No state shall deprive any person of life...without due process"?

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

#905

Post by wwweston »

fallingknife wrote: post #900
wwweston wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is disingenuous. The claim of Chevron supporters is that we need to defer to the agencies because they can make decisions based on technical expertise that the political branches don't have. But the example proves that is not what is happening. The fact that the rules changed every time the administration changed proves that these are, in fact, political decisions being made under the guise of technical expertis…

If different rulings by different people prove that expertise wasn't applied, it's equally credible to claim that expertise wasn't applied in the creation of this decision, since it's certainly a change.

Additionally, it's far from clear the examples reviewed were representative vs written to support the conclusion, so in addition to the problem of how variance is framed as a bug rather than a feature, it's not even really clear how much is actually occurring.

"Elections have consequences" is a well-known phenomena, and the idea that a branch other than the legislature might have influence over how the law is interpreted or executed shouldn't be news to anybody, least of all a member of the judiciary, many of whom will in fact be no doubt less qualified to make judgments vs agencies with specific technical and legal expertise.

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

#906

Post by [deleted] »

eightysixfour wrote: post #858
chrismaeda wrote: post #847

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.

> Pollution, the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form. Sounds like green house gases are pollutants.

[deleted]

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

#907

Post by dadjoker »

StarterPro wrote: post #848
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.

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.

Aws compared to the unelected and unaccountable "expert" bureaucrats making arbitrary rules that do things like penalize you for collection rainwater on your own property?

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

#908

Post by thfuran »

fallingknife wrote: post #900
wwweston wrote: post #761

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is disingenuous. The claim of Chevron supporters is that we need to defer to the agencies because they can make decisions based on technical expertise that the political branches don't have. But the example proves that is not what is happening. The fact that the rules changed every time the administration changed proves that these are, in fact, political decisions being made under the guise of technical expertis…

It's not unconstitutional for Congress to pass legislation delegating authority over certain areas to executive agencies.

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

#909

Post by diebeforei485 »

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.

> Just like congress can legislate abortion laws rather than leaving it to judicial precedence.

Actually they can't. They can only pass legislation that involves interstate commerce or spending. See https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10787

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

#910

Post by dadjoker »

Wow, truly amazing all the people in here who are perfectly content to let unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats make one "rule" after another because it makes them feel like they're doing their jobs, only increasing the regulatory burden on everyday Americans. So sad how many people prefer an oppressive regulatory government over the freedoms and liberties America was founded on.
Post reply on HN