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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by r3db34rd »

tw04 wrote: post #890
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. It would literally be impossible for congress to make a law covering every single nuance agencies are tasked with. This Supreme Court knows it. This is nothing more than deregulation on a scale not seen in modern American history. When you can’t find clean drinking water in 30 years, this…

[flagged]

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

#942

Post by hamasho »

lacy_tinpot wrote: post #918
tw04 wrote: post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress. It would literally be impossible for congress to make a law covering every single nuance agencies are tasked with. This Supreme Court knows it. This is nothing more than deregulation on a scale not seen in modern American history. When you can’t find clean drinking water in 30 years, this…

> It would literally be impossible for congress to make a law covering every single nuance agencies are tasked with. What does that even mean? Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no? If not... well I mean that's straight up irresponsible. The other part of this I don't get is that people have been complaining about the "Revolving Door" problem in these agencies for a long time now. They'r…

> What does that even mean? Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no? If not... well I mean that's straight up irresponsible.

It's unrealistic to expect agencies to implement flawless regulations, especially when they're often underfunded. Complex situations will always have loopholes, but letting corporations exploit them freely doesn't benefit society. Sure, agency overreach can be a problem, but in this case, I think the lack of regulation is more concerning.

> The problem with a lot of the called "progressives" is that they've adhered to a different kind of conservatism, where while the ideals are progressive, every single instance of actually implementing those ideals are conservative and play to old power structure.

I agree with your point about the conservative/progressive labels. People's views are nuanced - they might want to maintain the status quo on some issues, push for progressive change on others, or even revert to past practices. It's not black and white, even though we feel that way cause our society is getting more polarized.

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

#943

Post by camgunz »

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.

This is exactly the argument the dissent made: we've had Chevron for 80 years; if Congress was ever unhappy about it, they could have done something about it.

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

#944

Post by camgunz »

cryptonector wrote: post #700
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.

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.

It's so narrow that it's out of context. The APA does say "all matters of law" but it's in a longer sentence that makes it clear they mean a legal dispute. Roberts et al cram a huge shift of plenary powers through that pinhole. Regardless of what you think about the administrative state, no one can say with a straight face courts will do a good job of this. We don't even have enough judges to manage immigration and family law cases, and now we need people who are legal experts _and_ subject matter experts in all regulatory cases that come before them? I mean, we'll see what courts think after environmental rights groups file thousands of suits (as the majority seems to think they should be doing) after this.

Or I mean, a different outcome is that we get EPA court. Article III is very short and doesn't design the federal judiciary. Biden could pretty easily just make the EPA a court with lifetime appointments. What an own goal that would be haha.

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

#945

Post by goodluckchuck »

CivBase wrote: post #713
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…

> Changing the status quo on a fundamental de facto government structure is not good judiciating. Isn't the fundamental structure that the legislative branch writes laws, the judicial brand interprets laws, and the executive branch enacts/enforces laws? That's what I was taught in school. I don't doubt that this is a political move to shift power from a liberal presidency to a conservative supreme court. But to me it…

You’re evidently not partisan enough, because it is the wrong thing when the other guy does it. /s

Or, if you become less partisan, you may see that it is the right thing for the right reason.

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

#946

Post by goodluckchuck »

freejazz wrote: post #829
mjfl wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

acting for political expedience? They are making heavily impactful, politically unpopular moves to correct what they believe to be long term errors buried in court precedent.

It's politically expedient for their goals, your post explains exactly why: they are hugely unpopular moves, if for any reason, because of the tremendous uncertainty they create in the law at large.

I don’t buy the idea that this creates uncertainty. When I read a statute I have a level of certainty as to what it means. When I read executive branch rules interpreting the statute I have a better understanding of what the executive intends to do, but - as they don’t write the law - it doesn’t provide much clarity as to what the statute actually means. The executive can and should continue to provide guidance about its intentions, but saying that the law is whatever the executive intends it to be is smoke.

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

#947

Post by goodluckchuck »

eli wrote: post #897
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.

It’s a bit insulting to pretend that we still have a functional legislative body capable of passing such a law. And the court could simply invent more utter nonsense to toss it out again.

Congressional incompetence is partially an act. They spend most of the year deflecting and complaining that they can’t get anything done, then in a burst here and there, they kick out a multitude of new laws. There’s a substantial level of political theater. Neither side wants to tell their base that they’re wrong. It’s easier to say that the other side is blocking them and golly gee I’m doing everything I can.

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

#948

Post by goodluckchuck »

VincentEvans wrote: post #699
kolbe wrote: post #688

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.

IMO The rule of law derives from precedent. Prior to courts there was the rule of the monarch. The common law then developed as courts resolved disputes. It was all gap. The authorities would say the accused did something wrong and should be punished, and the courts came up with things like “murder” and “negligence.” Statutes are a relatively new way of making laws. They’re crude. Rather than simply resolving a real dispute based on the facts of an actual situation (and limiting the scope to the same or similar situations), legislators twiddle their thumbs and prospectively guess at what situations might occur and which words may address a multitude of unpredictable nuances. Statutes are pretty terrible because they’re so hard to refine. If a situation bumps against the plain language of a statute, the courts are essentially compelled to absurd and unjust results. However, that’s democracy. The people say they want the power to make the law, they say they want the clarity of a statute over a law book, and their errors are better than an overthrow of the system.

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

#949

Post by admax88qqq »

hamasho wrote: post #942
lacy_tinpot wrote: post #918

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would literally be impossible for congress to make a law covering every single nuance agencies are tasked with. What does that even mean? Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no? If not... well I mean that's straight up irresponsible. The other part of this I don't get is that people have been complaining about the "Revolving Door" problem in these agencies for a long time now. They'r…

> What does that even mean? Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no? If not... well I mean that's straight up irresponsible. It's unrealistic to expect agencies to implement flawless regulations, especially when they're often underfunded. Complex situations will always have loopholes, but letting corporations exploit them freely doesn't benefit society. Sure, agency overreach can be a prob…

I don’t think OP said that agencies have to make flawless regulations. They said that congress can literally make the Chevron Doctrine law. Giving agencies the power that they had before this ruling

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

#950

Post by dwighttk »

autoexec wrote: post #828
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.

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…

Everyone likes deadlock when it is stopping laws they don’t like
Post reply on HN