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

911–920 of 1001 posts

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

#911

Post by rayiner »

anon373839 wrote: post #816
cryptonector wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court decided this on statutory grounds because that's what this court likes to do: base decisions on the narrowest grounds possible. But it mentioned Marbury quite prominently and it's pretty clear that the court will not sustain a law that codifies Chevron.

I suppose Congress could use its power under Article III’s Exceptions Clause to strip the federal courts (including the Supreme Court) of jurisdiction to hear cases challenging an agency’s adherence to its enabling statute. Courts would still always be able to hear constitutional challenges, of course.

Congress could do that. But I don’t think democrats would like what the next Republican administration would do with that precedent.

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

#912

Post by xray2 »

tw04 wrote: post #890
VincentEvans wrote: post #664

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…

Lol it’s going to take 30 years to take effect? Delusional take.

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

#913

Post by [deleted] »

kelnos wrote: post #755
granzymes wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I liked this section of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence: > How bad is the problem? Take just one example. Brand X concerned a law regulating broadband internet services. There, the Court upheld an agency rule adopted by the administration of President George W. Bush because it was premised on a “reasonable” interpretation of the statute. Later, President Barack Obama’s administration rescinded the rule and replaced it…

I agree with Gorsuch's overall point, but he's also writing it knowing full well that today's Congress is not equipped to do all that rulemaking, and not equipped to agree on and pass the huge volume of legislation that would be necessary to duplicate all that rulemaking within the legislative branch. And he's ok with this, because his political ideology is such that fewer regulations and less rulemaking is a good th…

[deleted]

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

#914

Post by drrskino »

tw04 wrote: post #890
VincentEvans wrote: post #664

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…

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

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

#915

Post by SubiculumCode »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #860
babyshake wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the only reason the Supreme Court would not sustain a law is because it is unconstitutional? And otherwise their only role is to interpret laws? At least that's the way it is supposed to be AFAIK.

No, the court can also say that two laws are inconsistent. In this case, there is a judicial ruling (Chevron) that has stood for a while, that they are saying is inconsistent with a law (the APA). The constitution is not in this ruling at all. Generally, laws override judicial rulings unless the constitution is in question.

Can the Supreme Court ever declare two Constitutional clauses to be inconsistent?

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

#916

Post by anigbrowl »

ldf80g804 wrote: post #203
mp05 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps this will cause us to start electing experts instead of lifelong politicians? The number of doctors, engineers, and scientists in Congress is pathetic.

I keep telling people. Make stochastic democracy happen, where every 4 years randomly selected individuals populate the house to have a simple yay/nay vote on senate generated items ( senate can stay as is ). I used to joke about it, but I no longer think I am.

The idea of selecting legislators in a similar manner to jury service is how democracy originally used to be done, and it has a lot going for it in my view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition

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

#917

Post by thfuran »

mike_hearn wrote: post #522
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…

The Supreme Court doesn't resolve cases directly, they resolve questions of law for lower courts to take into account. They are meant to be experts in law, so there's no problem there. The lower courts can't be experts in everything, but bear in mind two things: 1. Courts have expert witnesses and a whole system around how they are called, challenged and questioned. Judges are trained to learn what they need to know…

>Courts have expert witnesses and a whole system around how they are called, challenged and questioned.

Yes, but this is a system where everyone involved is trying to (help their team) win rather than trying to produce generally efficacious policy.

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

#918

Post by lacy_tinpot »

tw04 wrote: post #890
VincentEvans wrote: post #664

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…

> 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're not sacred, and further we know they're not sacred because we've been complaining about their corruption. So why pretend they're sacred now? Why are there no solutions?

The problem with a lot of the called "progressives" is that they've adhered to a different kind of conservatism, where while the ideals are progressive, every single instance of actually implementing those ideals are conservative and play to old power structure.

Where are the progressive iconoclasts?

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

#919

Post by advael »

lacy_tinpot wrote: post #918
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…

> 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…

Generally speaking they are considered "unelectable" and thus mostly exert influence indirectly if at all. Especially in the United States, even many "progressive" causes that have become relatively mainstream (in terms of popular support) are viewed by most people as having very little actual political representation due to the two-party system, and this has been well-understood by most people who call themselves progressives for several decades.

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

#920

Post by cocacola1 »

stale2002 wrote: post #596
mywittyname wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The existing system of administrative rules absolutely sucks for stability. This new system is even worse. At some point, the Judiciary will make a poor ruling. Perhaps this ruling is impossible to hold to, but maybe the executive branch decides to usurp the court of its own volition. Then what? The checks and balances system of our government only works when everyone plays nice. But if push comes to shove, then th…

> towards solidifying the executive branch The ruling is literally the opposite. The power is put in the hands of the courts and it is take away from the executive appointed agencies.

Their point is that the "power" of the court is words and respect for its rulings. If the executive branch defies the court, the court can't actually do anything about it.
Post reply on HN