Get ready for the Judicial Branch (especially the Supreme Court) to be in charge of every federal agency going forward. It's going to get real ugly....
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
271–280 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be somewhat amusing if Congress took the bait and wrote some legislation telling the Court to get back in its lane. Maybe the majority of justices would actually be okay with that.
SCOTUS is governed by the constitution. All congress has control over is the purse (money paid to the justices), number of justices, and appointment of justices. SCOTUS rules are set out in Article III. If congress wants to change the rules of SCOTUS, they will need to amend the constitution. Note that congress does have power over all lower federal courts, as they were created by congress. SCOTUS is special here tho…
This ruling effectively makes SCOTUS in charge of everything, most notably every federal agency really, even Congress.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obvious check #1: Congress gets its sh*t together, and stops writing endless vague blather into law. Obvious check #2: Congress enlarges the Supreme Count to 21 Justices. And lets the President know that his nominees for the 12 new positions will need to understand who's the real boss.
Why stop at 21, why not get 1 supreme court from each state? You could get 2 if you wanted to be spicy and setup a sort of room for them all to debate in. Then after they heard the debates they could vote on the matter and if it passes it gets written into law. A sort of congress...
I was thinking "enough to routinely overrule the current 9 Justices".
Representing individual states, as such, is supposed to be the job of Congressmen. And - with how low-functioning Congress is looking, these days, patterning anything new after them is probably a bad idea.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but people who have been listening have also been dreading this coming for years. The fact that they're consistently knocking over shelves doesn't make it better. We've known that Roe was on the chopping block, but it doesn't make it good law even if it's consistent with the conservative justices' goals.
>Yes but people who have been listening have also been dreading this coming for years. Why are they dreading this? I find it strange how so many people are upset that the Supreme Court is forcing Congress to do its job, which is pass laws.
Congress is broken and structurally incapable of passing laws under this level of political polarization because there are too many veto points (bicameral legislature, the filibuster, the presidential veto) for any law to get passed even if it's supported by the majority of legislators and the majority of voters.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
The constitution mandates that the courts interpret the law. Thomas and Gorsuch are right in their concurrences, allowing the executive branch to both enforce and interpret law is abhorrent to our constitution's proscribed separation of powers.
Except Chevron was just codification of the status quo that had existed since the founding of the country. Congress cannot be expected to craft every bit of law and regulation down to the finest detail, and the gridlock that has been congress over the past several decades should make it clear that it's practically impossible. The regulatory power of federal agencies has never been broad and without oversight from oth…
The Federalist Society and its adherents see an ineffective Congress, and a general inability to enforce regulations, as a goal.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but people who have been listening have also been dreading this coming for years. The fact that they're consistently knocking over shelves doesn't make it better. We've known that Roe was on the chopping block, but it doesn't make it good law even if it's consistent with the conservative justices' goals.
Vesting unreviewable legislative authority in unelected bureaucrats specifically chosen because of their long and close ties to the industries they are meant to regulate is anathema to every tenet of democracy. Good riddance.
Removing Chevron deference moves authority from the administrative agencies to the courts, who are not only also unelected bureaucrats, they are more insulated from democratic forces since they have lifetime appointments. Agency heads are political appointments and change with every president.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#277There's a tendency among certain people on HN to act like the conservative justices have no rhyme or reason and are just a bull running mindlessly through the china shop breaking precedent at random or specifically to hurt specific groups of people. I'm not a fan of every ruling that they've made, but this should have come as absolutely no surprise to anyone who's been paying any attention to the arguments that this…
I understand that one reason for the continuing of Chevron deference is that Congress has been writing laws for the past 4 decades assuming that the agencies can iron out the ambiguities. I wonder if going forward congress can just try to have those agencies iron out the ambiguities before passing the law? Or is the idea that its impossible to anticipate all possible edge cases and congress wants to let the agency ir…
> Congress has been writing laws for the past 4 decades assuming that the agencies can iron out the ambiguities
My understanding is that the big problem is that this expectation is implicit.
Congress isn't granting agencies the authority to make determinations as to what falls into a category, for instance. Instead, they're creating a category without further elaboration.
Compare that to 18 USC 921(a)(4)(C), which says in part:
The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 7684(2), 7685, or 7686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.
My understanding is that this would not be impacted by overturning Chevron, as the process was established by Congress explicitly. Hypothetically, if that provision did not exist and the AG unilaterally decided that a weapon that was otherwise included in the category should not be, then that would be an example of executive rulemaking within the bounds of Chevron.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but people who have been listening have also been dreading this coming for years. The fact that they're consistently knocking over shelves doesn't make it better. We've known that Roe was on the chopping block, but it doesn't make it good law even if it's consistent with the conservative justices' goals.
>Yes but people who have been listening have also been dreading this coming for years. Why are they dreading this? I find it strange how so many people are upset that the Supreme Court is forcing Congress to do its job, which is pass laws.
> Why are they dreading this? I find it strange how so many people are upset that the Supreme Court is forcing Congress to do its job, which is pass laws.
Congress is extremely dysfunctional and won’t be able to keep up. Corporations are going to exploit the lag in rule making by fucking over individuals like you and me. That’s why I’m concerned.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
The constitution mandates that the courts interpret the law. Thomas and Gorsuch are right in their concurrences, allowing the executive branch to both enforce and interpret law is abhorrent to our constitution's proscribed separation of powers.
> The constitution mandates that the courts interpret the law. The idea of Congress delegating certain powers dates back to 1825: * https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html Further precedents from the 1920s and 1930s (and more recent) are listed in the above link. It's not a new idea that some ambiguities are left to the Executive to figure out.
Congress can still delegate certain powers even after this.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why stop at 21, why not get 1 supreme court from each state? You could get 2 if you wanted to be spicy and setup a sort of room for them all to debate in. Then after they heard the debates they could vote on the matter and if it passes it gets written into law. A sort of congress...
I was thinking "enough to routinely overrule the current 9 Justices". Representing individual states, as such, is supposed to be the job of Congressmen. And - with how low-functioning Congress is looking, these days, patterning anything new after them is probably a bad idea.
So Congress is dysfunctional. The Supreme Court is semi-functional, but functioning in a way that you don't like. So you want Congress to vote in a bunch of new people to fix the Supreme Court. Why do you think that will work, instead of be ruined by the usual Congressional dysfunction?
And, if the party in power adds enough Supreme Court justices to routinely overturn the current 9, what makes you think that when the other side is in power, they won't add enough to overturn your 12?
The Supreme Court is not supposed to bend with the wind of every political election. It's by design.