991–1000 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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-legisla…
Can you show evidence of this strategy working somewhere else? This isn't a competitive marketplace where failure to do useful work is punished, what we have learned is that people want grandstanding over effective politicians. The losers won't be the politicians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Combined with yesterday’s ruling on administrative courts, this amounts to a massive increase in the role of the federal judiciary in the execution of government action. Sounds great. How we got to the point where executive-branch agencies were making rules with the force of law, binding upon the public with no judicial oversight, is a mystery to me, but it's good to see that the courts are taking their responsibil…
It’s not a mystery, Congress delegated their authority to the executive branch willingly.
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.
That the court is allowed to exercise power not enumerated anywhere is a major problem, just not a new one. We really should have legislated their role centuries ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if something that is seen as a bad idea should be kept in place because "that's the way we've always done it"?
To paraphrase Linus: If it's a bug that people depend on then it's not a bug- it's a feature.
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…
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…
If you can find clean water in 30 years, it may be because reasonable judges were not required to defer to the environmental science of the Trump EPA. Chevron was imposed in the first place to help the Reagan EPA narrow environmental regulations.
In any case the vast majority of judges will probably keep deferring to the regulators in most cases. They aren't forbidden to, they're just no longer required to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The laws should state something like "food purity should be within %x of yada yada, where x is updated yearly by the appropriate agency" Then it's up to the courts to decide if the law was broken or not. This is kind of true, but also belies the depth of the Chevron change. In this example, plaintiffs can now, for example, challenge how the "X%" calculation is done. What's an appropriate methodology? In the past, c…
but if congress explicitly states that agency xyz will update specific numbers wouldn't that be pretty solid? As far as I can tell, this is just about leaving it up to the courts when things are ambiguous, which is kind of the point of courts.
What's the process for determining the methodology? Would another process have been better? Does the plaintiff's proposed approach for methodological determination also conform to this law?
In this case, "how to go about determining methodology" is left ambiguous, and is now the province of the courts, not the EPA.
This is a fantastic outcome. If you give an agency the power to interpret the law that congress has prescribed to the agency, the agency will almost always chose an interpretation that is in their self-interest - often leading to a corrupt (really, just an outright wrong) interpretation of the law. It's surprising that Chevron was ever even case law. Thank goodness we have a set of justices that are actually looking…
I strongly disagree. As someone above said it's the equivalent of requiring a meeting for every commit when building software. How good do you think congress will be at passing small laws when changes need to be made in federal agencies regulations?
Furthermore, it's not "every commit" - it's commits that are questionable or have varying interpretations. Most litigation occurs relating to known laws that has substantial case law relating to it. The edge case situations are the ones that are not accounted for, and they're the far minority of litigation. It's these edge case situations which will require a meeting, and deservedly so. I'm sure you wouldn't be against that, however if you have facts to provide that would show this would be a bad outcome or what I stated would in fact lead to an absurd result, then please go ahead an provide it.