Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by Auracle »

mywittyname wrote: post #540
Auracle wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes you need to refactor the code, even when it’s going to be a huge mess to do so.

This is more like deleting the backups then shutting off the A/C in the server room. It's not going to be feasible to run the country this way. So something has to give, either the agencies tell SCOTUS to fuck off, agencies stop operating, or they file suit for every little thing and clog up the already overworked justice system (which I guess means that we end up with behind closed doors mediation). Since the Presid…

The country ran just fine before 1984. Some would argue better, though I couldn't say if they were right.

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

#662

Post by tiahura »

mushufasa wrote: post #608

This is a complete disaster. The ramifications will be felt for decades. Now businesses must factor in the uncertainty of any random person launching a lawsuit that causes a local court to reverse a federal agency policy. Huge potential impacts to product / revenue, not just legal fees to fight everything. And immeasurable impacts of cowing all bold business decisions to avoid the ire of any person or group, no matte…

How would a random person have standing?

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

#664

Post by VincentEvans »

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.

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

#665

Post by joshdata »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #386
rswail wrote: post #99

I'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…

> So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This isn't accurate. Agencies will just need to work with Congress to help them write laws which make sense according to how the agency would like something to regulated.

> Agencies will just need to work with Congress to help them write laws

This is already exactly how it works.

One reason why legislating takes so long is because there is an enormous amount of collaboration between legislators and agencies to get it as right as they can.

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

#666

Post by fireflash38 »

bell-cot wrote: post #93

Before proclaiming that this outcome is horrible - Please consider that the Good Guys (your opinion) might not win the election in November. And that you might not want the courts auto-deferring to all the plausible-ish interpretations of ambiguous laws which gov't agency officials appointed by the Bad Guys (your opinion) might suddenly add the Official Agency Interpretations next year.

You mean that thing that a certain political party had taken great pains to stack with partisans judges will now get to decide even more?

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

#668

Post by intended »

throwdown7653 wrote: post #647
dilippkumar wrote: post #365

Earlier 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.

[flagged]

I think describing a 2 line statement as civil discourse worth of engagement really puts some pressure on those 2 lines. Following it up with disagree with words, not downvotes adds to the weight of those lines.

Given the effort ratio, I wouldnt condone downvotes, however I wouldnt be surprised if that was the easiest response.

Also - Downvotes have existed since, at least, slashdot. They are not censorship. They can be misapplied, but it’s not censorship.

This site is also actively moderated. It’s part of the censorship industrial complex as trust and safety is being called now.

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

#669

Post by erichocean »

mushufasa wrote: post #608

This is a complete disaster. The ramifications will be felt for decades. Now businesses must factor in the uncertainty of any random person launching a lawsuit that causes a local court to reverse a federal agency policy. Huge potential impacts to product / revenue, not just legal fees to fight everything. And immeasurable impacts of cowing all bold business decisions to avoid the ire of any person or group, no matte…

> now people are going to be concerned about the unpredictability of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has been reversing itself since the country's inception. I think we'll survive it making corrections in the future.

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

#670

Post by tiahura »

ABCLAW wrote: post #379
stronglikedan wrote: post #137

Earlier 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.

>If anything, they'll need to rely on more expertise now, so they can craft laws that aren't open to interpretation. Every law is open to interpretation. If tech can barely secure the doors on machines that execute instructions near-flawlessly, you think we can construct flawless frameworks out of inherently ambiguous linguistic building blocks run and understood by deeply human executors? This just plain doesn't wor…

That’s why the police should determine innocence and guilt, they’re the experts.
Post reply on HN