Fantastic!
Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
641–650 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#642Devastating 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
But whose expertise. The problem is that with every change in the administration, The rules change because there are new experts that interpret the rules in a different way. Chevron deference led to instability of understanding what the law was.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#643Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#644Some folks were predicting this: > It has been nearly 40 years since the Supreme Court indicated in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. After more than three-and-a-half hours of oral argument on Wednesday, it seemed unlikely that the rule outlined in that case, known as the Chevron doctrine, will survive in its current…
> Chevron, he complained, “ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in” and implements “massive change” in areas like securities law, communications law, and environmental law. New laws being enacted as governments change is not a shock to the system, it is business as usual. Overturning decades old precedents on the other hand...
The problem isn't "new laws being enacted as governments change", it was "new interpretations of existing laws being enacted as control of the executive branch switches parties". Net Neutrality either is or isn't the law of the land, depending on which president last got to appoint to the FCC, and is in charge now. Federal prosecution for possession of marijuana is or isn't the law of the land depending on which president is in charge of the DEA. It should be considered a complete failure of our system that the status of those things can change overnight, without debate or challenge and on the whims of which of the octogenarians running for president wins in November.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#645I'm impressed that they can so easily dispose of 40 years of law making by Congress that assumed that agencies would interpret the statutes and make rules for regulating their area of authority. Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. Awesome logic work, but terrible legal thin…
> Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. > So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This honestly sounds perfect. If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.
> This honestly sounds perfect.
> If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.
There's no way. But, I guess we'll find out. I hope HN is around in 10 years so we can see who is right.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#646Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about the application of law. It's about the ambiguity of law. If anything, they'll need to rely on more expertise now, so they can craft laws that aren't open to interpretation. This is a fantastic decision on the part of the court.
> It's about the ambiguity of law. If anything, they'll need to rely on more expertise now, so they can craft laws that aren't open to interpretation. I doubt that granting Congress more power will inspire them to be less political, more responsible, and more governed by facts. Particularly when the party that made this decision has veered completely in the opposite direction. If anything, it will be used to prioriti…
> doubt that granting Congress more power will inspire them to be less political
Now imagine what unelected government officials who play the revolving doors game with the industry they're supposed to regulate can do.
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#647I'm impressed that they can so easily dispose of 40 years of law making by Congress that assumed that agencies would interpret the statutes and make rules for regulating their area of authority. Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. Awesome logic work, but terrible legal thin…
> Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. > So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This honestly sounds perfect. If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.
[flagged]
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#648Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. > So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This honestly sounds perfect. If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.
We disagree. I prefer an effective administration of government.
[flagged]
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#649I'm impressed that they can so easily dispose of 40 years of law making by Congress that assumed that agencies would interpret the statutes and make rules for regulating their area of authority. Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. Awesome logic work, but terrible legal thin…
I'm thankful.
Congress skirted their duties for 40 years. This legislative / executive codependency then created a tightly connected and interdependent governance system, outside the purview of the judicial 'checks and balances.' This is why things like warrantless mass tapping and the Patriot Act became 'good law.'
We are unwinding decades of bad governance. This is a joyous occasion, along with the ACJ decision from last session.
Before anyone says there were still checks and balances - if you feel the need to, you have no idea what Cheveron meant
Re: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine
#650Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chevron, he complained, “ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in” and implements “massive change” in areas like securities law, communications law, and environmental law. New laws being enacted as governments change is not a shock to the system, it is business as usual. Overturning decades old precedents on the other hand...
The problem isn't "new laws being enacted as governments change", it was "new interpretations of existing laws being enacted as control of the executive branch switches parties". Net Neutrality either is or isn't the law of the land, depending on which president last got to appoint to the FCC, and is in charge now. Federal prosecution for possession of marijuana is or isn't the law of the land depending on which pres…
> It should be considered a complete failure of our system that the status of those things can change overnight, without debate or challenge and on the whims of which of the octogenarians running for president wins in November.
I would consider an election to be the highest form of debate and challenge. It is not a failure of the system that the leaders the people choose get to lead the way they see fit, that is the point of the system.