Idk im french and it seems a good decisio
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
951–960 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#952Doesn't this fuck things like the 400ft drone limit and remote id and a bunch of other shit as well?
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#953Congress 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.
Cool but it sure feels like "SETTLED LAW" doesnt mean shit anymore.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#954Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s a cycle of checks and balances that is supposed to loop back into itself. Except that the US doesn't have a functioning legislative branch, so the corrective feedback action never happens. The justices who are making these rulings, and their clients, are very well aware of this.
Then the voters should kick the bastards out. That's the biggest check on the legislative branch, it has pretty fast turnover. Now, if you have a population that doesn't want to elect lawmakers who will actually pass laws...well, that sucks, but it's kind of working as designed.
The problem is that we have FPTP elections which mean the alternate candidates are non-viable. Anyone who can fundraise for a successful primary campaign has enough ties to moneyed interests to become part of the swamp.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#955This seems like the judicial branch just voted to give itself substantially more power. Are there any checks against this? Or can justices just keep granting themselves more powers and invalidating any restraints?
> "This seems like the judicial branch just voted to give itself substantially more power. Are there any checks against this?" Yes, absolutely. Congress can do their job and write the laws instead of delegating their authority to the Executive Branch.
The problem I have—even with a functional Congress—is that laws will be passed with political kickbacks in mind. Irrelevant nonsense like dairy subsidies tied to telecommunications regulation to secure the necessary votes.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#956Earlier 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.
Congress could do that. But I don’t think democrats would like what the next Republican administration would do with that precedent.
You do realize the dems doing something and the reps following up with the same thing, doesn't somehow stop the republicans for just doing it themselves lol,
I'll never understand this bullshit stance "democrats cant do it because then maybe republicans will do it later" ... i mean how does not doing it ever stop republicans from doing it anyway later lol... this stance is what has fucked democrats for decades, this obliviousness that republicans have no issue jumping directly to extremes, like saying ROE was settled law and then overturning it in a fucking massive partisan ruling.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#957Congress 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.
> 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.
What would such a law look like?
Let's pretend we're in congress and want to pass a law limiting pollution in lakes and rivers.
One option would be to have a bunch of experts tell us what we should explicitly ban and write those into the law. This option would mean we need to revisit the law every few years as the science changes and new harmful chemicals are developed or identified.
If instead we want the agency to be able to adapt to new situations, how do we word it in a way that won't be overturned? Congress is in charge of legislating. When does writing rules for what is and isn't pollution cross the line to legislating? Can congress turn any of that power over to executive branch agencies without a separation of powers argument coming up?
I have some views on this supreme court and believe they're driven by ideology and not a consistent legal framework. Even if you believe they are completely impartial how would you protect these laws against a future court that may not be?
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#958What happened to no politics on HN? The US is getting closer to a major election so articles like this are going to pop up more and more.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#959Earlier 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…
> > 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.
It means the supreme court just gutted the agencies ability to make and enforce regulations. The agencies have lots of experts who know what they're supposed to be regulating they just aren't allowed to do that in many cases now. Unless congress writes things explicitly into law you can expect legal challenges to just about any regulation the agencies try to put forward.
> 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're not sacred, and further we know they're not sacred because we've been complaining about their corruption. So why pretend they're sacred now?
Why do you think these two issues are opposed? The answer to weak and lax regulation isn't to remove the ability to regulate.
> Why are there no solutions?
What solutions are you proposing? Do you think your solutions have any chance of getting anywhere in the current political climate? Who benefits from the status quo and how much effort will they put in to block a solution?
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#960Congress 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…
Overruling Chevron doesn't require Congress to make laws covering every nuance. It just changes who resolves ambiguities in the laws. The irony of your comment is that federal clean-water legislation dates to 1948. The governing precedent at the time was Skidmore v. Swift, under which courts deferred to agency interpretations of statutes tot he extent the court found them persuasive. That regime functioned just fine for 40 years before Chevron changed the law.
Chevron, of course, was a case where the Reagan EPA interpreted the word "source" in the Clean Air Act to refer to an entire plant, rather than a distinct pollution source. The D.C. Circuit, in a decision written by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, disagreed with the EPA's interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the EPA was empowered to resolve such ambiguities in the text of the statutes.