Moderator removed post
Can someone explain to me how conservatives see the country functionally moving forward without Chevron and without anti-bribery laws?
Removed: MegathreadThat’s called deregulation. And they imaging the courts making decisions instead of agencies. Except the courts take a decade to decide something. And by then, we all have cancer, the company in violation has been liquidated, the river being damaged is destroyed, the politician being bribed is retired, and rich people are even richer.
Exactly right.
Federalist Society will be stepping in to help with the case load. Then hand it to the courts to write their 2 page document. There’s no way the courts will be able to respond quick enough with this architecture, so they’ll need to outsource it. For a fee of course. Federalist society Created the problem then they’ll profit off of it.
The FedSoc will happily do this for free. They're paid by massive corporations who keep lobbyists and lawyers on retainer by the bucket full. Lobbying, model legislation, and pre-written juducial opinions are insanely good ROI
Are the members named somewhere?
Has someone made a list.
JudgeAI handling 50.000 cases per hour. I can see it.
Not bribes, gratuities
And you thought tipping culture was out of hand at restaurants...
Right, because remember if it's done afterwards, it's completely legal... I swear the Supreme Court is planning on long term suicide.
Right they see it as less government, the corporation sees it at let's bribe whoever the fuck we need to go make the most money
The correct word is 'gratuity'. You know - like a tip jar!
Basic and so spot on. Deindustrialisation-internet will be interrupted-can’t have the majority so connected making trouble.
“The illegal we do immediately the unconstitutional the unconstitutional takes a little longer”
Henry Kissinger
"The illegal, we do immediately. The unconstitutional... the unconstitutional takes a little longer."
You have to ask the court permission to use punctuation now so sorry about that please file your application and wait 4-6 years thank you
Oh no anyways so as I was saying
Punctuation is so important.
Punctuation would help. Wtf does that even mean?
Exactly.
A truly evil man, but he was right on this.
That’s a bingo. To MAGAts having less guard-rails on the sweatshop that they inherit from their family is a vaunted feature of their ideal government, not some scary bug to look out for
These people would be right at home in feudal societies that still have slavery
It's their dream
Bingo we have a winner! This is exactly what returning to the good old days means. Back when company towns exists back when lunchings happen back to Jim Crow back to burning rivers and DDT killing wildlife back to lead in our water back back back back etc …………………………………
Will they also just ruled that beriberi is basically legal now so I'm sure with enough $$ a corporation can get a ruling as soon as they pony up the funds
The spice from Etheopia? I'm sure Alito would make it illegal if he could.
🗣️👏🏽
Well before the original chevron decision in 1984 isn’t that how things worked?
Chevron doesn’t even deregulate, it just doesn’t give the automatic of the doubt to the unelected bureaucrats when the judiciary is dealing with an ambiguous law.
So an unelected judge with no expertise in the subject being decided is better than unelected bureaucrats who have experience and expertise in the field they regulate?
Seems like you haven’t actually thought this through.
That’s exactly correct. The legislature makes laws. The judiciary interprets laws. The executive branch executes laws. It’s sixth grade civics and it’s right there spelled out in the documents that structure our republic.
I mean the actual Constitution says nothing about the judiciary interpreting laws. That’s mostly something the court decided for itself (Marbury).
If only that was the problem.
America! FUCK YEA!
Also the idea that bureaucrats in charge of agency are experts on there subjects is debatable, many are just life long political appointees. The idea that senators and congressmen write the laws is also a joke. They defer to lobbyists and other “experts”. Will this decision change how things are done in Washington? Yes . Will it be the disaster that many are claiming it will be? Doubt it. In the end it won’t be noticeable by most.
I agree with you regarding the lobbyists doing a lot of the leg work in drafting legislation, but you are very wrong that the federal government civil service is filled with life-long political appointments.
First, political appointments in the executive branch almost always only last as long as the administration, hence, “political.”
Second, you don’t know what you’re talking about regarding the expertise of federal civil servants. SMEs in the federal civil service are, in fact, among the foremost experts in their fields. Please identify any federal agency where you think the people running it (GS15, SES) are not experts. I’ll happily provide you with proof if you name just one agency.
Overturning Chevron will further tip the scales in favor of wealthy private interests that benefit from lax regulation, and the people that get screwed by the lax regulation are people with little to no political power.
I hope your conclusion that it won’t have any effect is accurate, but just know that your premises are provably wrong.
I'm not a legal scholar with all of the answers here and I might be wrong, but I'd say that it's an improvement for decisions in disputes to be made by judges rather than the unelected bureaucratic class. I think a lot of the complaints about this ruling come from people who are worried about their "political team" losing a lot of the power they had to effectively create policy with no accountability to the public.
Except the courts take a decade to decide something.
Again, I'm not a legal scholar, but I strongly feel like this is a problem that will work itself out in some way by logical humans.
Imagine the court system being inundated by cases and having a growing backlog.
If that happens and the courts become impossibly burdened, aren't they going to start doing things differently to manage that?
And imagine if there was some urgent case like a river being destroyed. Wouldn't that be prioritized, or have some kind of temporary stoppage on whatever was effecting that until a ruling was reached at?
”Imagine the court system being inundated by cases and having a growing backlog.
If that happens and the courts become impossibly burdened, aren't they going to start doing things differently to manage that?”
Yeah they did that with criminal cases for that reason. Know what the solution was? Force suspects to enter into plea bargains, many times even if they are innocent, so that it won’t ever have to go to court. And if you force them to go to court they will throw the book at you and make life difficult. Our immigration courts are overloaded at this very moment. Our government and courts didn’t change the system to better deal with it properly by expanding the courts or increasing funding, instead they just keep people hanging on the line for years, often times without the ability to work. And note these aren’t courts hearing “illegal immigration” cases, it is courts hearing amnesty cases. Cases where the people have a right to be heard in a reasonable time frame so they can move on with their lives.
And the thing is the courts are no better than Congress. They have no specialized knowledge of the industry/case they are listening to. The whole point with Chevron is that the regulators are industry experts, they know what it is they are speaking of, or should as their entire life revolves around it, and so they should be the ones making the determination. Judges have no clue, they are ”supposed” to just be interpreting the law, NOT making regulatory decisions. And in many cases they also are unelected bureaucrats. Look at Aileen Canon for the perfect example.
This.
And people below in the "middle class" and below can't really afford any kind of legal defense, and so we are just going to throw underpaid/overworked defense lawyers at these influx of people, and they just tell the people "look, it's going to be easier [for me] if you just go to prison".
The issue is not one of judges vs. unelected bureaucrats. It's who has the expertise to fill in the gaps of law or interpret what might be considered "safe" for the public.
As mentioned elsewhere, judges are experts in law. They are not scientists or financial experts. The overturning of Chevron is a tangential example of the Dunning-Kruger effect where judges, being experts in one area, believe their superior intelligence transfers to all domains of knowledge. Just as a medical doctor or financial analyst has no business adjudicating a criminal trial, judges have no business being involved in deciding what a safe level of lead is in drinking water or what the Federal funds rate should be.
This is the world that the justices have just given themselves; one in which they are now the final arbiters of disputes that are well outside their own area of expertise. Unfortunately, we are the ones that are going to pay the price for that.
There are a lot of judges who don’t even know the law themselves. Experts my ass. Not every type of judgeship requires that you get a law degree and become a lawyer. But if you want to qualify to become a judge in a higher court, you must attend an American Bar Association (ABA) accredited law school and get a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree.
judges have no business being involved in deciding what a safe level of lead is in drinking water or what the Federal funds rate should be.
Then only place this will have major impact is on the second step of the Chevron Deference which is where Congress has been silent on the matter and courts gave Deference to the agency interpretation of the statue. Overturning Chevron simply means that courts can take the agency interpretation into consideration but legally do not have to give Deference to it. This decides doesn't mean that judges are going to stick their fingers in their ears and yell Lalalala at expert testimony, briefs, etc.
It means judges will give Deference to what the law is, Congress' intent was and/or what the law speaks to in the silence of Congress. They can and will continue to take the agency input as part of the evidence. And I would venture to guess in most cases will side often with the agency unless they have wildly overstepped to make law, outside their purview.
The other part everyone up in arms keeps forgetting is these so called experts change wlth every administration. So do you want judges hands forced to give Deference to the Donald Trump political appointees of the FDA, EPA, etc and how they interpret law?
Of course they won’t remove the backlog. The goal is to cripple regulation. Moving the decision process from a bureaucrat at the FDA that is on the ground to a bureaucrat that is in some federal courthouse two states away with a two-year backlog is not better.
It means that brown water that catches fire coming out of your sink tap is going to be doing that for a long time.
Before the EPA we had rivers catching on fire, they want to go back to that. Instead of experts making decisions, that you define as the unelected bureaucratic class, we will have courts deciding. Unfortunately, those with the sharpest lawyers will prevail. Oil companies will have the means to hire the best lawyers. These forces will destroy the earth for more dollars in their pockets, it’s as simple as that.
As I understand it, judges still make decisions but gave deference to agency experts. And congress can always step in and modify the law.
The entire reason for the Chevron doctrine is that judges are law experts, not scientists. Given that, in another decision, Neil Gorsuch misidentified Nitrogen Oxide, which is poisonous with Nitrous Oxide which is laughing gas, the risk is great. You might think it is a harmless typo made by a clerk who didn't proofread but these decisions have the force of law.
I could be wrong, but I don't think it's about science, but about the agencies determining what should or should not be law. For example, the smoking age being raised to 21. It never went to congress and it overrided the power of the states to regulate these things.
Prior to this ruling, the agency would simply almost just automatically win as they had the authority to create the rules without being elected.
Now, the agency can still create whatever rules and the supreme court can decide whether it bypassed the process as opposed to allowing the executive branch more authority to create laws.
And congress can always step in and modify the law.
IMO, that's what might have been missing.
This ruling might be a fantastic incentive for Congress to actually debate and write out the good legislation.
If there's a river being destroyed, as the comment I responded to said, then why isn't there a law against that and why must some bureaucrat step in?
The entire reason for the Chevron doctrine is that judges are law experts, not scientists. Given that, in another decision, Neil Gorsuch misidentified Nitrogen Oxide, which is poisonous with Nitrous Oxide which is laughing gas, the risk is great. You might think it is a harmless typo made by a clerk who didn't proofread but these decisions have the force of law.
It's true that judges aren't scientists, but similarly, scientists also shouldn't implicitly be considered experts in any field they aren't an expert in. Their ideas on certain subjects might not take into account factors that they're not experts in such as human behavior and incentives, economics, risk-management or other important things.
Again, I'm not a legal scholar, but I strongly feel like this is a problem that will work itself out in some way by logical humans.
Have you been paying attention to the whole "women's bodily autonomy rights" issues? They aren't "fixing themselves out", they are getting WORSE.
This is dumb af. You’re entire argument is based on your feelings of how this will all work out. You realize why things evolved to have this legal precedent right? Or even why legal precedent evolves at all, right? It’s explicitly because of a failure of something to work itself out.
I am a legal scholar and this is stupidity masquerading as reason.
The root issue here seems to be bad legislation that's vague and forces decision making away from the people's representatives towards the bureaucracies.
This ruling changes that incentive and seems like a positive thing to me.
You’re entire argument is based on your feelings of how this will all work out.
We're all talking about feelings, dude. All of the criticisms of this ruling seems to be based on peoples' feelings that this ruling will not work out.
You have a very positive view of how Conservative courts will react to this ruling I feel like.
New York courts are so burdened that people wait years for trials in Rikers.
If a river is being destroyed, I don't see courts rushing in to save it. Especially in states that have a horrible eco record. I'm looking at your TX And W. VA.
To me, it seems like there's a lot of goal-oriented rather than system-oriented thinking here.
Everybody is focused on "courts are burdened" and nobody is looking at the root issue of why courts are burdened and why that's the root thing that should be addressed.
Judges like I’ll do anything your say master for some spare change and a motorhome. Thomas!
Conservatives naively assume that things work out better than they actually do.
All that said, Chevron's overturning is not the permanent death knell you think it is. The ruling made was that when Congress doesn't supply specific instructions, environmental agencies are not legally empowered to fill in gaps that come up.
All Congress has to do now is legally empower the agencies more specifically. Luckily, they have already begun to do that when Democrats had the House too, because the court has ruled this same idea for other industries too. Biden's Inflation Reduction Act had a ton of environmental programs and regulations built in, and they were worded specifically to empower agencies to enforce them. So if you help Democrats win this fall (and every other election after that), they'll keep up that effort and reword old regulations.
Ball's in your court (if you're American)
They don't see the country moving forward in any positive way. They're just trying to line their own pockets. Conservative policies are designed to benefit only the rich.
Yeah, but one day I will be rich, so checkmate.
Exactly. Conservatives are convinced that someday they too will be rich, so they want to make it as cushy up there as they can
Temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
They know the world is ending so they might as well speed run it and enjoy all the money they while we don’t.
Maybe Congress needs to do its job. They are awful at drafting laws. They need to get the experts in on the drafting of legislation to make it better rather than taking the language provided by whichever lobbyist gave it to them.
There are too many concepts and technical considerations to spell out every single one in legislation. “Says here that you can’t dump industrial waste into the river. We just got a shipment of Benzene that we didn’t order. I’m dumping it in the river”
they just see everything as either pro-progressive or anti-progressive
since chevron was pro-progressive, they are automatically against it. there is no thought process, they see overturning it as "our side won"
Maybe progressives should start vocally supporting all the terrible ideas conservatives are pushing, like some Loony Tunes style reverse psychology??
You mean like Romneycare? When Dems pushed Obamacare it was a copy of Romneys plan in Mass. But when proposed by a dem it was suddenly entirely evil and government overreach.
George Bush passed a law mandating a certain % of renewables in Texas. Imagine if Biden tried to pass that?
Reality doesn't matter. During covid they were team everyone dies simply because dems were trying to fight it. Its almost pointless to think about the hypocrisy or logical consistency. Its just I win you lose politics. And... it works and it'll keep working until we change our media laws.
might work tbh
As a progressive, i am in favor of breathing and I think that Biden should make an executive order requiring it. I am also opposed to licking doorknobs and i would like to see a regulation prohibiting that.
And this TikTok craze of sticking your arms into wood chippers needs to be stopped, again by executive order.
Also people should be required by law to vote!
Chevron was actually considered a conservative victory back when it was decided because the courts were seen as too liberal and the executive was conservative. Now that the executive is liberal and the courts are conservative, overturning it is considered a victory.
I mean, some agencies were getting out of hand with it.
The ATF kept making up legislation as they went, going far enough to entirely ignore explicitly defined legislation from Congress and do their own thing instead, that came with extremely stiff criminal penalties for normal people
The Pros of Chevron being reversed is that it maintains separation of authority between the judiciary and the executive sub-departments. The prior standard offered a bit too much flexibility in how government agencies interpreted and in effect enforced the laws, and that made for some very contradictory or selectively-enforced punishments for violations. Some agencies were worse about this than others and it allowed them to expand their authority in ways that their authority as provided by the legislative branch didn't specifically allow for.
If these departments want more authority or want to enact specific punishments they have to petition the legislative for changes to the US code.
The claimed con is that it handicaps the effectiveness of these governmental departments and increases the authority of the judiciary. Or that the real culprit is that the legislative needs to stop providing too many vaguely worded statutes.
The argument from the Court that Congress can make new rules is a misdirect. The Judiciary knows that the Legislative branch has been paralyzed by conservative politics. Getting very specific technical rules passed into law in a timely manner is basically impossible. Even in a fully functional government it is an inefficient way to do so.
But even if Congress did manage to pass laws, the court might just invalidate them. They recently said that otherwise doesn’t mean otherwise and a statute didn’t cover what it said via a plain reading.
You cannot overcome a corrupt court via a good faith attempt to pass laws. It is all a power grab, it is all an attempt by the Court to legislate from the bench. Arguing via their framing means you have already lost the policy debate.
Remember that having a government where it's hard to pass laws is a feature, not a bug. It's an intentional part of the design.
Having a government that is incapable of responding to the needs of the people is not a design intent it is a failure.
If we are to go the way of this new doctrine then we need to quadruple the size of the judiciary so that they can handle this vastly increased workload or
Having a government where 1 of the only 2 ruling parties is borderline anarchist & actively refuses to pass any legislation whatsoever is decidedly NOT part of the design.
A fourth branch of the government, the administrative state, was very much not part of the original design. If one is to exist then it must be answerable to the people, which can only be done by Congress pass the laws and the courts interpret the laws. Chevron upset that check and balance system and the constitutional order has now been restored
What makes you think Congress is answerable to the people? There are decades of evidence that the tyranny of the minority both within each house as well as in pack & crack district gerrymandering has helped paralyze the entire apparatus.
Congress being answerable to the people is like THE basic tenant of a democracy, if you can't even say that as a baseline then there isn't really a democracy.
Bingo! We've been a plutocratic kleptocracy for at least 2 decades now!
I wholeheartedly agree that Congress is much less answerable to the people than it was at the inception of our government. I do note that by design only the House was meant to be directly answerable to the people (that’s the term “the peoples house“) while senators originally were meant to be answerable to the states. But yes, nowadays, both are elected by the people and yet they are all in the pockets of corporations and special interest groups. Personally, I think term limits and rather stringent campaign finance reform would do a lot to return power to the people. A lifetime ban on lobbying after congressional service would also help.
But there is absolutely no doubt that the people have zero control over unelected bureaucrats. Try reading what Max Weber wrote about bureaucracy decades ago, it’s actually quite chilling when you consider how much power the bureaucracy has, and how entrenched they are. Try watching the film Brazil and read 1984. These concerns over bureaucracy are very valid.
Make sure you apply that to both parties equally, because both are obstructionist to legislation they don't want. Shoot, when Trump was in power, they wouldn't have let him take a crap if it had come to the House floor for discussion.
You're only seeing half the rot, when it's present on both sides.
Oh god, I was wondering where the “both sides” trolls were.
Oh God, I can't believe there are still people blind enough not to see the problems with both sides.
Absolutely not. Do not both sides the McConnell doctrine, a hold over from Obama years.
The stated only goal of the Republican party was ensuring Obama was a 1 term president. They failed, but succeeded in stopping EVERYTHING ELSE, including Supreme justices in an election year...
If it was only, "Standing athwart history yelling Stop!", you might have an argument. It's not. It's completely F-THE-LAW & that is a purely "less laws is better" conservative approach.
You’re going to be downvoted into oblivion but you’re right. Sincerely, a conservative who hates Trump.
And it’s been exposed to be a shitty broken design
That is not the concern of the SCOTUS though. They decide on constitutionality, and shouldn't keep policy just because it's effective. The executive branch is not supposed to have the power to interpret law without being challenged. Even if it leads to fast policy changes, it's not constitutional and is very easy to abuse. Remember when the FCC tossed net neutrality and was completely unchecked? Or how the ATF redefines a gun every year to target specific groups?
Part of the point of SCOTUS is to keep with precedent and stability of the law when possible.
Chevron has been the law of the land for decades. That doesn’t make it sacrosanct but it does mean that it shouldn’t be destroyed lightly.
The Court pretends that this decision will make the law more clear when it will cause chaos and delays. To replace Chevron properly we needed an alternative doctrine or to fall back on a previous doctrine. What we don’t need is the court just saying the judges will handle it.
There simply are not enough judges in this country to keep up with the workload the Court has put on the Judiciary. It is irresponsible to create such a burden when they know the courts are incapable of handling it.
Even if the government wasn't paralyzed, why are we asking Congress to make explicit laws instead of delegating that task to subject matter experts?
Because for some people a government that is incapable of action is the point.
If your going to frame your con argument as something claimed, you should do so with your pro argument.
You can’t say that something is unequivocally good but only maybe bad.
If people want more active politics, they should vote for more active politicians,
We're fucking trying.
The people should just not have gerrymandered districts. And a few million people in rural states just should not have the same power in the Senate as a tens of millions of people in larger states. It's that simple. /s
That's all well and good, but courts (and legislatures) are just not qualified to make these kinds of decisions. In Ohio v EPA this term, Gorsuch said Nitrous Oxide like 5 times instead of Nitrogen Oxide. That's the difference between laughing gas and smog.
Judiciary or Legislative?
Or that the real culprit is that the judiciary needs to stop providing too many vaguely worded statutes.
Good point. Here is where I think they may have switched them.
The entire point of the Chevron was that the courts (judiciary) had no need to make any statutes in the case where the wording of the laws (from the legislative branch) were unclear. So this looks like a typo.
My head has been spinning, trying to process what this decision means. This only applies to cases where the law is unclear. But if the law is unclear, and the court's responsibility is to enforce the law... on what basis does the court make a decision? Sure, expert opinion could/should factor in, but even if you are in a technical field, and making technical statements, that does not mean that value judgement is not involved. What do technical people do, but go on and on about tradeoffs. Science never tells you what you should do. Others have talked about a "lack of a framework", and that hits hard for me here. On what basis would the courts be making decisions? It doesn't make any sense.
The Pros of Chevron being reversed is that it maintains separation of authority between the judiciary and the executive sub-departments
This is false. This ruling means that the Judiciary is OVER the executive and can overrule their logical and what should be a permissible readings of a statue in favor of whatever the Judiciary wants. It does not create seperation it creates subordination.
The prior standard offered a bit too much flexibility in how government agencies interpreted and in effect enforced the laws
Again false. It only allowed agencies to interpret the laws in ways that were reasonable and said that if the interpretation was reasonable to court should defer to their expert opinions. Judges aren't scientists or doctors and should be not making a ruling on what is a "harmful" chemical, experts in the related field should.
selectively-enforced punishments for violations
I don't deny this happened. But that is NOT a problem that stemmed from Chevron. It will also continue to happen regardless of the law as limited budgets always make selective enforcement a thing.
If these departments want more authority or want to enact specific punishments they have to petition the legislative for changes to the US code.
As pointed out before. The courts can just say that whatever was written doesn't mean what it said and that only they can now interpret congress's meaning. Any ambiguity means the law is entirely in the Judiciaries hands and effective regulatory legislation cannot be percise as companies can just slightly pivot off of precise language. Congress has the ability to delegate it's powers in broad strokes to the Executive branch. It is litterally what the Executive branch is for, to run the state's day to day operations.
This is false. This ruling means that the Judiciary is OVER the executive and can overrule their logical and what should be a permissible readings of a statue in favor of whatever the Judiciary wants. It does not create seperation it creates subordination.
No, that isn't what it means at all. The Judiciary is separate from both the executive and legislature and has some power to check both...just as the executive has some power to check both the legislature and judiciary (veto power, appointment of justices), and the legislature has some power to check the executive and judiciary.
What the judiciary is doing when it overrules a regulation post-Chevron is telling the executive that its interpretation of what the legislature wrote was erroneous. This kicks responsibility back to the legislature to clarify. The court isn't substituting its own judgment as law for all time. It's telling Congress "if you wanted the executive to be able to do this, you should have written the law more clearly". Congress can, and in many cases should, revisit said law to clarify and explicity give that power to the executive.
User deleted comment
6d
If the ATF went overboard and forced a decision then the Court could have ruled that under Chevron. They didn't need to overturn chevron to do it. Overruling EOs and Agency rules was allowed under chevron if they were clearly not what the law said, which is why overturning it was unnesscary unless you are looking to gut regulations and put the Court over the Executive branch.
Chevron said in essense "if you can read this 2 ways then either if fine and the Executive decides" now the Court's new stance is "If you can read this 2 ways only we get to decide".
What the judiciary is doing when it overrules a regulation post-Chevron is telling the executive that its interpretation of what the legislature wrote was erroneous.
But this ISN"T THEIR JOB. Their job is to rule if the interpretation was LEGAL not Correct. When a statue is ambiguos either reading should be allowed by the court, the agency who has the expertise on the subject matter should decide. If their interpretation is incorrect then Congress can amend the law.
It's telling Congress "if you wanted the executive to be able to do this, you should have written the law more clearly".
Why not have it be "if this isn't what you wanted them to do you should have written it more clearly". That is what it has been for decades and has worked just fine? It gave the Executive a co-equal spot in this equation instead of having it be only between the Courts and The Legislature.
It would appear that you fundamentally misunderstand the system of checks and balances in the Constitution. It very much is the job of the courts to act as a check on the other two branches. Congress needs to pass constitutional laws, and the Executive needs to act within both the bounds of the Constitution and the statutes passed by Congress and then signed by the President. The Courts have been instrumental in ensuring freedom and equal rights of citizens
Nah. The real pros are that we can now go back to the pre-chevron state of regulations, where citizens could sue federal agencies that are not enforcing regulations as they were instructed in the law.
No more using deference to federal agency interpretation to have an oil and gas lawyer defanging the EPA from the inside.
Only real answer here. Too many people throwing in their own bias instead of answering the actual question…
A reasonable take. I'm surprised the downvotes haven't come yet
With the current case before SC was that congredd passed a law saying that fisherman of certain kinds of fish would have to accept inspectors. They didn't pass a way to pay for it. The executive branch department decided that the fisherman would have to pay for it.
The SC majority said that the executive branch couldn't decide that. Congress should have passed the law saying that they should have included how it was going to be paid for. Did congress say the fisherman should pay or that the agency should cover it with their budget.
The new rule doesn't say that judges would de idea granular things like those have been saying in here. This is a good thing because congress should have to make clear their rules that they passed.
Progressives should be happy because if Trump wins the election the power of the executive would be reduced making their decisions less impactful.
Chevron is right.
The legislature is supposed to make the laws. The executive is supposed to enforce those laws. The judiciary interprets those laws.
The executive interpreting and making laws is a clear violation of our constitution. I know lots in this thread have said “that’s just how things function” but that is not an acceptable answer here. The two options are either operate in accordance with the constitution or pass an amendment. There isn’t some hidden third option like Chevron. Justices made a bad call back then, executive agencies have abused it for years and now we are finally correcting that.
So Congress is going to have to pass a law that says airplanes can't take off from a closed runway? Because now the FAA can't just make that rule.
The executive isn’t “interpreting and making laws” the chevron decision allowed regulatory agencies to apply the laws to specific chemicals and modern situations. Leaving every little decision to the court isn’t practical, and they know it. It allows corporations to do whatever they want
Chevron enabled the legislature to write poor, ambiguous laws. That day is over. Too many executive agencies abused that power and that’s the situation we are now in. Have you read the case that overturned Chevron? It’s literally a government agency harming a small business financially just because they could. The ATF constantly enforces rules that don’t exist anywhere in the law. This leads to questions on how the agency would know the unwritten intent of the lawmakers.
What's this? An unbiased accurate answer? Impossible
Is certainly not unbiased. It holds constructionism up as categorically correct despite it being common knowledge that a modern amendment IS NOT POSSIBLE.
...in 1776. The legislature does fuck all in 2024, and do you really want Lauren Boebert, a high school drop out and back room tuggler with a brain the size of my left testicle, deciding on water quality policy, consumer protections, drug regulation, meat packing standards, etc...? MAGA just threw the country.
If you don’t like the constitution then make an effort to change it via an amendment. I’m not sure why you feel you can ignore already approved processes just because you want to.
Sounds like you think we operate in a civil law system, as opposed to a common law system in which law and policy are undergirded by a consitution, AND shaped by stare decisis and precedence. If you don't like it, blow the whole thing up and rebuild a civil law system in which all laws and policies are are clearly articulated via a million statutes.
The agencies are meant to enforce laws in particular areas, not legislate. They inform and assist congress on policy but cannot make it themselves. We do not want unelected officials making policy and law or interpreting either. That is the job of congress. The legislative body creates laws, the judicial body interprets them, the agencies enforce them. Under chevron, the agencies were given full power to be both legislative and judicial which is very wrong.
The laws were already created when the agencies were. This is dumbest argument and y'all keep making it.
User deleted comment
6d
Lol, made up scenarios in your head about government agents taking you to prison for guns are not even close to this. Eat some more paint chips.
You are woefully ignorant and uninformed. That is the basis for the entire decision
I am 50/50 on the Chevron decision. I have not done enough reading from both sides to make a personal opinion just yet but the reading I have done lends to my belief that both sides are a bit guilty of a fair amount of alarmist language.
An example of some of that is that now "the courts" will decide and not "the experts".
That is not technically true. The court will decide the merits of any given case and, most often, those cases are brought by experts (from both sides). Now the court can decide the case based on its merit rather than giving preference to the administrative agency. Organizations like the Blue Ribbon Coalition, several Livestock orgs, the Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy have all brought their experts into court to fight an agency ruling and lost to the deference given to administrative agencies. Chevron Deference was not solely regulating corporation and polluters. It has turned away environmental activist lawsuits nearly as often as it has regulated corporations to be more responsible.
If we have learned anything the last few years it should be that "the experts" can be wrong. Whether in seeking regulation or deregulation, the experts can get it wrong and these administrative agencies can themselves be influenced by political fervor which does not always act on the benefit of "the people". In some ways removing Chevron will give experts whose opinion counter those of the agencies equal footing in court.
Theoretically, the best outcome (which will probably never happen but hey, it is good to hope), is that Congress, before writing laws and handing them off to these agencies, would themselves consult expert opinion and write laws less vague and open ended.
Whether or not the removal of Chevron will be a net good or net bad is not known. People pretending that its removal is the end of life as we know it and we will all live on poisoned ground is a bit of a stretch. It is just alarmism. Just like anything else in this life I am sure there will be instances of very poor results. There is will also be good results. Which there ends up being more of is difficult to say.
here's the best concise summary of chevron I've seen (from Morgan Lewis (a law firm)). It's not the end of the world in either direction but will open new avenues for litigation, that's for sure. Keep in mind Chevron deference was invented by the court and did not exist since 1787.
With the Loper Bright and Relentess decision, courts must now interpret federal statutes without deference to agency interpretations and instead based on standard statutory interpretation tools, including plain language and congressional intent, as they do in all other cases involving federal statutes.
I'm less concerned about the removal of Chevron than I am the anti-bribery laws. In what rational world do we not punish bribery? Oh, you mean the same world where members of SCOTUS can be bought?
Overturning Chevron makes little practical change in how the country functions. It just shifts power a bit from the executive branch a bit more toward the legislative and judicial. It's an important change for lawyers and politicians, not for the common person.
The recent Snyder decision didn't get rid of anti-bribery laws. It's just an interpretation of how one federal anti-bribery law works. Being conservative has nothing to do with this, the criticism of the law is that it's not clear what conduct it prohibited, while we want laws that define crimes to be very clear. If anything, it's usually conservatives that want more harsh enforcement of criminal laws.
User deleted comment
6d
People on Reddit like to get fired up and suddenly become experts on the perils of nondelegation
Yeah.... Just like over turning row v wade wouldn't mean people would lose access to medically necessary healthcare... And here we are. With doctors in certain states refusing to treat women least they lose their license and end up in jail.
What could go wrong if we just move to the logical fucking conclusion?
Conservatives don’t want harsher enforcement of laws they literally just made it harder to enforce bribery laws because they were taking those kinds of bribes. 🤡
Conservatives have a lot to do with this because they aren't remotely interested in writing less ambiguous regulations to protect the health of normal people and prevent corruption. Conservatives staged these cases because they wanted to get rid of the regulations completely.
The conservative movement doesn't /want/ the country to move forward. That's the whole point, specifically and explicitly. They want things to stay the same or move backwards -- one side calls itself "progressive" and it's not this one.
It's like asking "how do the liberals expect to honor the values of their forefathers when they keep advocating for racial and gender equality?" They don't. That is not one of their goals.
This right here. It took me a while to wrap my head around the fact that they use "progressive" as a dirty word because -they don't want progress.- I'll never truly understand it, honestly. The best I can do is understand that it IS their point of view, for whatever reason.
When big businesses can’t get sued for destroying the earth and killing people, they profit.
You assume they're thinking more than 6 seconds ahead at any give time. They do not care about the future. Only money.
Or a dysfunctional government is the goal.
That is the goal, it allows corporations to do whatever they want
It's both.
Bribery has been legal in the US for a long time. We call it lobbying and PAC / super PAC.
Dear God, we might have to actually follow constitutional processes and have actual elected representatives do their jobs rather than cede all power to an unaccountable, unelected administrative state? Oh no!
Really Chevron doesn’t even accomplish that, it just instructs lower courts not to defer to the bureaucrats’ interpretation when the law is ambiguous.
The people who crow endlessly about their fear of democracy sure don’t like the idea of unelected people not having all the power.
the problem is that congress is, by design, far too slow for most situations like this. By the time they act it will be far too late. That's why you use experts in their field instead.
When the FCC was going to make all the net neutrality decisions themselves, reddit liberals were in an uproar about how overpowered they were.
The problem with the "experts" is that they aren't usually the experts, they are beaurocrats who are not subject to election. For example, the ATF constantly decides that they are no longer restricted to regulating weapon receivers, and they can regulate any part of a gun they want, pass sweeping laws, then the courts reign them in. The types of decisions that lead to felonies are the types that should be codified in law by congress, guided by experts. The ATF are not experts.
Oh, I see, protecting democracy is giving the power to unelected “experts.” Makes sense.
This is sixth grade civics. It’s the legislature’s job to make the laws (with some consent from the executive). It’s the executive’s job to execute the laws (and run the military). It’s the judiciary’s job to review and interpret the laws.
Pretty simple.
Oh, I see, protecting democracy is giving the power to unelected “experts.” Makes sense.
No, and this has nothing to do with democracy, this has to do with the ability of government to function in a timely manner. This isn't the 19th century.
Sounds like you have a change to the constitution to propose, friend. You know, one which would be passed by the various elected representatives of the people.
So instead of unelected educated bureaucrats bound by all kinds of checks and balances, the decisions will go to unelected, unfireable and uneducated judges who can set new precedent based on their ideology.
They're delusional. It's why they're conservatives.
This seems like a moderate shift of power from the executive branch of government towards the judicial and legislative.
Isn't that fantastic news for people who are concerned about certain unnamed Orange political candidate's potential abuse of power?
Democrats want more power in the executive branch. They just forget that Republicans can also be in the executive branch.
It’s not fantastic news for anyone who thinks we need to have functioning governmental institutions to combat the major problems of the day. With Chevron, the agencies in charge of implementing Congressional statutes are the first ones in line to decide what things like ‘pollutants’ or ‘unfair trade practices’ or ‘carcinogenic substances’ means and outing into practice the regulations and enforcement practices under Congress’ broad statutory directives.
Without Chevron, you have the courts constantly second-guessing and overruling the agency’s technical experts over those technical questions, hobbling the agency’s ability to do anything. The people who win here are the corporate interests who don’t want federal agencies to be able to regulate their business practices for health and safety, environmental protection, fair labor standards, etc.
Which will be undone come Project 2025, the exact plan to permanently seat Trump as dictator of the US with diplomatic immunity. What good are changes like these in the face of the US turning into a hyperreligious fascist state?
The priority for the country, and the world, is to defeat and permanently quash conservative ideology, especially if it's informed by nonsensical magic religions.
I’ll give you my paid for just built house if trump becomes a dictator.
I'll hold you to that
Federal judges are appointed by the President, and if you haven't noticed, tons of ours are directly sponsored by the Heritage Foundation.
And unelected beaurocrats in federal agencies being able to change the law on a dime is any better? Remember Ajit Pai?
Confirmed by the senate
I would say a bigger than any other case-most of the evil is unprecedented
The People versus SCOTUS Sick Six Their corruption must be called out.
lol, we somehow managed to get along just fine from 1776 to 1984 without Chevron, I’m really not thinking the entire country will collapse because unelected bureaucrats will have a tiny bit less power and a little more oversight
You mean with the acid rain, leaded gasoline, asbestos, no car safety regulations, slavery, child labor, etc. you're also a freaking idiot and totally ignorant of the past.
Look at how poisonous our food supply is and tell me that the chevron experts were serving our best interests.
They don't. They're all banking on their own thievery and lies not being significant enough to move the needle so they can keep leeching off society. The trouble is, there are so many of these parasites that their corrosive skullduggery's accumulative effect is significant and is going to destroy the fabric of society. Fuck em.
"'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party."
Why do you tie anti-bribery laws in with Chevron?
Conservatives, generally speaking, want to end the disgusting practice of lobbying (i.e. legalized bribery).
Because they were both recent rulings done by this supreme court
What is the name of the anti-bribery one, I seem to have missed it.
Depends on which way your facing and where your final destination is.
If your final destination is the Gilded Age of the late 1800s then these court rulings are great. Whether or not that considered forwards or backwards really depends on whether or not you are progressive or regressive.
A negative times a negative equals a positive. And if your world view is backwards, and you want to return to some mythical past, then going backwards looks like forwards.
Trick question. They want to move it backwards…
This sounds interesting, but when i google Chevron i find just information about the Canadian petrol station chain. Can somebody please post a link for background reading?
Conservatives are bad, immoral people. All they care about is money and power over others, and they're too stupid to know the difference between a carrot and a stick.
As an ex-employee of a variety of corporations, VERY WELL. You are confusing conservatism with criminality. Conservatism has values and principles. Corporations and criminals do not.
Corruptly and unregulated.
Well Chevron was decided in 1984, so probably in the same way everything was done before that.
If you think politicians aren't being bribed already with jobs or whatever after they leave office I have a bridge to sell you
I'm not stumping for the rulings. I'm a liberal. I just have extreme anxiety fatigue. Some things can be bad but not the world is ending bad.
Very easily. First they will challenge regulations they don’t like in court. They will sue agencies in districts with conservative judges so they know they will get the ruling they want. For example they will sue the FDA over its abortion pill approval. They will sue the EPA over its water quality regulations. They will sue the ATF over some of their gun rules and regulations.
When it comes to passing new laws, well they aren’t that motivated to do so. When they do, they will just have the laws written by lobbyists to make sure the law is specific enough and technically accurate to not get challenged in court. Conservatives are very obstructionist, they are willing to stall and wait to get the laws they want.
When it comes to corruption, both sides have had corruption scandals, but GOP politicians do seem to be quite a bit more regularly caught up in conflicts of interest. Trump was literally proposing a quid pro quo with oil execs to trade money for favorable regulation. Several of the conservative Supreme Court justices have been accepting gifts for years. Jarod Kushner got paid $2billion (with a B) by Saudi Arabia for who knows what. They don’t care about bribery as long as they are the ones doing it.
Their goal is to make the federal government somewhere between toothless and non-existent. They want us to be 50 independent nations instead of one country, because that makes it easier to enact their christofascist ideals across at least some of the states since they know those ideas aren't popular enough to be enacted nationwide. They decided long ago that if they can't win over the whole country, they're better off dissolving the country and running only part of it.
the supreme court is doing what it should do, which is interpreting the original intent of the constitution. federal agencies always tend to grow larger and grab more and more power. what mechanism would blue haired commies on reddit prefer to be used to control overreaching federal agencies, if not the courts?
There was a time before the rise of law making agencies. If society needs a law for it to function, Congress exists for the purpose of making that law.
This is extremely stupid. Congress would become the regulatory agency for EVERYTHING.
Testing period for drugs: need a new law for every type of drug testing period.
Safe PPM for various chemicals in the air, water, and ground? New laws for each of those.
Safety regs for cars, trucks, airplanes, boats? New laws for all of that.
They can't pass a budget, you think they're gonna pass tens of thousands of well-researched and functional public safety bills every year?
Testing period for drugs: need a new law for every type of drug testing period.
Or they could just use the existing testing period and approval process actually laid out in the empowering legislation.
Safety regs for cars, trucks, airplanes, boats? New laws for all of that.
Congress actually creating the laws we all live under? Scandalous!
It sounds like you think Democracy is too troublesome to live under. Anakin, is that you?
You're obviously not bright enough to understand why this is a disaster, so have a good day and continue eating leaded paint chips, thanks.
And you're obviously not bright enough to understand there is an entire academic field of study on this subject. So have a good day and continue pretending a small change that most regulated industries won't even notice will somehow be the end of civilization.
Many don't know,/don't care, they voted mainly to kill roe. Too many of those among us who care about/ understand such things had a hissy fit in 2016 and failed to vote against the now convict after inhaling russian propaganda.
Unfortunately, this may happen again. Instead of focusing on Chevron and a slew of terrible decisions made by the corpratist theocrats dump installed on the court, the media circus is mainly repeating the alt right's current campaign slogan "Biden old" 😔
They don’t care if so long as they benefit.
As long as the wealthy stay wealthy that's about as far as they are concerned
The Chevron doctrine allowed federal agencies to make enforcement decisions not addressed by the law. Thus the agency was "making law not specified in the original text". That is overreach inconsistent with administrative agency legal definition. This clarification will address political appointees becoming the nations lawgivers.
Seventeen thousand regulations were just made illegal. And Congress will be prohibited from passing new ones. The death toll from this will utterly dwarf covid.
Tell me you don’t know what you’re talking about without saying it
remember those old militias that wanted to destroy the government? every now and then they'd do a documentary about them and they'd say the craziest shit about the government? Tim mcveigh comes to mind. well, that's who these rulings were made for. because those are the people who call themselves "patriots", while cheering the downfall of the government they celebrate on July 4th while flying confederate flags. they want to kill it. simply. then rule for ever.
Most of them only see it as owning the libs, and that's enough.
It depends, which conservatives do you mean?
The ones at the top see them destroying the country and making lots of money.
The ones who vote can't think, for themselves or just in general. So it doesn't occur to them that you need to plan for the future or mitigate risks. They just go with their team.
The same as it does now, just when you challenge something the government says, they can't say well...I get to just make up the rules when it says nothing or something vague. In theory this increases the action of democracy. The elected people have to draft better laws.
Bribery laws are not gone. The argument is a difference between gratuity and bribery. One takes place before and the other after an action. There still remains illegal gratuity, it is just applied under a different law with different consequences. Furthermore, states have laws on these. The entire case was not a constitutional case, that is to say they didn't say this cannot change, just that this is what the law currently says and has since 1986 (literally a Reagan era change that broke these [gratuity/bribery] apart). I also am not a fan of this in what it is but am on the grounds that the law is evenly applied how it should be. The law needs to be changed by congress.
They see us striding powerfully into a brilliant future where Americans are free from government interference. They've been soaking in Federalist / Koch / Mercer propaganda for so long they have no idea what they're in for.
Every conservative and libertarian should read, "The Good Old Days - They Were Terrible," by Otto Bettman. He wrote it to be anti-nostalgia. The book makes it clear why we had nanny-state regulations to begin with. Did you see the news where DeSantis is letting Floridians swim in dangerously high levels of fecal material? It used to be that carcasses from slaughterhouses would wash up on the beach.
Did you legitimately expect an unbiased accurate answer from this sub?
These are the people that posted videos of themselves huffing from their gas stoves to show that they were safe.
"Forward" isn't really the direction they want to go.
They only believe in the Bible over everything else, so whatever the Bible says about it, as long as it doesn't go against them lining their pockets with cash.
Simple. They truly don't care about the country being functional.
Imagine being upset about the government not being able to always get there way...
Too many want to view the government as some evil overlord who is there to prevent them from doing what they want. Except what they want is often detrimental to them or to other people around them. Government should be the good guy that protects us from other people who want to hurt us and take advantage of us. That is the purpose of agencies like the EPA, FAA, FDA,and many others. I grew up in the 50's in Pittsburgh and remember when we could see the air. I remember when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire. I remember 3 Mile Island.
Bit like the 1880s but with internet. So badly for most of us.
Conservatives are short sighted followers. The rich evil ones wanted this and told their followers lies about getting government out of people's daily lives.
They think this means that the government will 'leave them alone' when in reality all this is going to do is cost more taxpayer money because things will be tied up in court... and we're going to have judges who don't know shit deciding things vs. organizations who specialize in shit.
If you were to plan Idiocracy, this is a good first step.
Thanks for your submission /u/ShakotanUrchin, but it has been removed for the following reason:
Disallowed question area: Megathread-related question.
Questions about US Politics are not banned here, but we have been getting so many questions that our users get tired of seeing them, so we have removed your post (sorry!). We've created a megathread where you can post questions like this instead! Check it out - questions posted there get answered regularly, and your question might already be answered there! If not, feel free to post questions there as long as you follow the rules.
The megathreads are always linked to at the top of the sub: /r/NoStupidQuestions/hot. The wiki also has links to current megathreads.
Thanks for posting, and good luck with your question!
This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.
If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to message the moderators. Thanks.