Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine • Hacker News Board

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

#981

Post by torstenvl » Sat, Jun 29, 2024, 8:40 PM UTC

calgarymicro wrote: post #325

torstenvl wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until today, most national policy was set by "experts," i.e., people whose careers, professional reputation, and emotional bonds are bound up in the industry. That is to say, the rich and connected in any given area of life. The SEC is staffed with "experts" in exchanging securities, i.e., successful traders, who are then expected to govern traders. The inexorable result of this status quo is corruption and oligarchy…

Ironic that you link to an article about the Gilens/Page study, which showed that it was in large part Congress that was unresponsive to popular opinion, not federal agencies like the SEC.

Fair. Please read as a cf. not a see.

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

#982

Post by NotYourLawyer » Sat, Jun 29, 2024, 9:22 PM UTC

cryptonector wrote: post #929

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #875

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems unlikely to me. Why do you think so? There hasn’t been a successful nondelegatiom challenge in like a hundred years.

I gave my reason in the comment you're replying to.

Because they mentioned Marbury? Meh.

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

#983

Post by cryptonector » Sat, Jun 29, 2024, 9:45 PM UTC

cchance wrote: post #952

Doesn't this fuck things like the 400ft drone limit and remote id and a bunch of other shit as well?

Remote ID, possibly. Raimondo means only that the courts won't blindly accept an agency's interpretation of the law, but sometimes -often!- the court's interpretations will roughly agree with the agencies'.

For the 400ft thing you'd have to look at what the FAA wrote in their ruling about how it's within the letter of what statute(s), and then reason for yourself whether that's a stretch, and then wonder what the chances are that the courts will interpret that differently.

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

#984

Post by lacy_tinpot » Sat, Jun 29, 2024, 10:25 PM UTC

fredophile wrote: post #959

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…

> > 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…

This is the typical response to demanding actual action. It's a litany of excuses that both decries ineptitude and at the same time expresses satisfaction with it. It's ridiculous.

Ultimately I hope everyone that shares this sentiment really tries to introspect, read what they write/say, and see how deeply flawed the arguments are. It directly leads to strategic blunders.

In all honesty what does it really take for people to see the reality of their situation?

The left no longer has any will whatsoever, no courage, no real "revolutionary" spirit at all. It is decrepit, meek, and unwilling to change because it's paralyzed by fear (and that's being generous). It has no real political positions that people are demanding, because those political positions are in direct opposition to the majority of the players within the party that claims to represent progressives/left. It doesn't. It's a Conservative Party that has progressive talking points.

That is not how you run anything. That's not how you run politics, that's not even how you live a life. Don't let fear of failure mean complete inaction.

Taking risks is absolutely paramount, otherwise those at the margins willing to take risks, will eventually win out.

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

#985

Post by notSupplied » Sun, Jun 30, 2024, 2:35 AM UTC

psynister wrote: post #466

callroomlamp wrote: post #118

Devastating that expertise will no longer influence the application of law and policy. The biggest question is who will interpret the application of law? Will it be challenged in court once again until a clear statement is made? Meanwhile, what will be the effects of this “deregulation” until a clear statement is made

That's pretty generous to claim that expertise is what was influencing application of law and policy before this. Agency oversight got us Ajit Pai deciding to kill net neutrality.

After which none of the doomsday scenarios people shrieked about had occurred. ISPs aren’t selling bundles that exclude certain websites, nor do cable providers privilege their streaming video traffic over Netflix.

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

#986

Post by bumby » Sun, Jun 30, 2024, 3:05 AM UTC

Gormo wrote: post #978

bumby wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feels like one of those topics that may sound ok in theory, but breaks down in practice. The implication is that the judges must be well-versed enough in any domain brought before them to interpret the laws effectively. This seems like a tall order for nine people. We have already seen this trouble in expecting strict interpretations regarding tech. To be fair, Congress has the same problem. I believe that was i…

> This feels like one of those topics that may sound ok in theory, but breaks down in practice. The implication is that the judges must be well-versed enough in any domain brought before them to interpret the laws effectively No -- subject matter expertise is not relevant per se, as what is being evaluated in these cases is not whether the policy advanced by a given agency is sound on its technical merits or factual…

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but what you’re describing sounds like what I thought the case was before this ruling. The courts were deciding on the reasonableness of the agency interpretation. Now it sounds like the court is interpreting directly. To do the latter effectively, I still maintain you need a solid expert understanding of the domain.

It sounds like we disagree on who is better equipped to make the kinds of interpretations necessary for effective policy. Like I said in another post, I don’t think we can pretend law can be abstracted and cleaved from the systems it regulates. The court admits they don’t have expertise in those systems. That makes me feel they are ill-equipped for the types of interpretations.

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

#987

Post by rayiner » Sun, Jun 30, 2024, 3:26 AM UTC

drrskino wrote: post #914

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…

The people trying to downplay this being a brazen partisan ploy at deregulation are not doing a very good job.

How do you figure that overturning a decision that ruled in favor of an oil company and against the NRDC is a partisan ploy? For which party?

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

#988

Post by rayiner » Sun, Jun 30, 2024, 3:30 AM UTC

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #938

philwelch wrote: post #927

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There was leaded gasoline which even at the time it was introduced was known to cause brain damage.

The EPA began phasing out leaded gasoline 9 years before Chevron. Also, Chevron ruled in favor of an oil company.

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

#989

Post by dilippkumar » Sun, Jun 30, 2024, 3:32 AM UTC

eightysixfour wrote: post #868

dilippkumar wrote: post #341

There’s a lot of negativity around this ruling here on HN. As a not-lawyer, non expert, I welcome this ruling. The strongest argument I can make in favor of this come from the dissenting opinion by Justice Kagan: > This Court has long understood Chevron deference to reflect what Congress would want, and so to be rooted in a presumption of legislative intent. Congress knows that it does not—in fact cannot—write perfec…

> When incompetence is rewarded by reduced work loads, incompetence is amplified. What? When incompetence has more responsibility, the effect of incompetence is amplified.

> When incompetence has more responsibility, the effect of incompetence is amplified.

Correct. This is the desired effect.

Today, Congress hides behind endless procedural votes and dramatic hearings and grandstanding against political opponents and basically doing everything except for useful work.

Now, not only are they on the hook, their incompetence is (hopefully) going to be amplified.

The all-talk-but-no-legislating politicians will, over the next 20 years, get weeded out one by one.

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

#990

Post by rayiner » Sun, Jun 30, 2024, 3:41 AM UTC

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…

This is completely wrong. Chevron is about the Clean Air Act, which required Chevron (the oil company) to get a permit for every pollution “source.” The Reagan EPA interpreted the word “source” in the statute to mean an entire plant, not an individual pollution source (like a smokestack). It was sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council, who argued that the law requires Chevron to get a permit for every pollution source.

The D.C. Circuit, in an opinion by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, sided with NRDC. But the Supreme Court reversed, ruling in favor of the EPA (and Chevron). The Supreme Court said that the court had to defer to the EPAs interpretation of the word “source,” even if the court thought that wasn’t the best interpretation of the law.