433
It probably won't work. SCOTUS will just declare the new legislation unconstitutional and then go lounge on their billionaire provided yachts while the rest of us drown in sewage.
If it actually gets passed, I think it has a good chance of holding up. The big problem with Chevron deference, despite its convenience, is that the Administrative Procedures Act says that courts are supposed to do the exact opposite.
I have no faith in them be able to pass something like this. Not when this is what the Republicans have been dreaming of for the last 50 years. But I hope they keep trying.
I have no faith in them be able to pass something like this. Not when this is what the Republicans have been dreaming of for the last 50 years. But I hope they keep trying.
They haven't. The ruling is only 40 years old from 1984. And it was actually a Reagan era interpretation based on Reagan EPA era. Not sure when the Republicans changed their mind on this though.
Edit: this probably is a trump era, fauci backlash, change. Maybe tea party roots. But this level of anti intellectualism and Republicans getting nominated to dismantle and not govern didn't exist until probably 2010. Mitt Romney, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield probably all wanted and supported agencies to do their bidding. Mitch used his power to guy like Anit Pai in the FCC which Obama approved....
They saw chevron as useful when Republicans had control over all the major agencies, but with gov agencies driven by experts and scientists who can ignore the Republicans screaming then chevron isn't helping them anymore. And that's part of why they try to get as many partisan judges into the system as possible, to get their way through corrupt courts instead.
Definitely tea party roots, libertarians have been against it for ages.
Reagan really kicked is off on the trajectory of privatization, trusting corporations to bed good stewards of the people. It was a steady trajectory really kicked in to high gear with the recession since blood was on the water
Now the right hates any part of the government that doesn't hold a gun, and would rather drink poison than impede corporate profits.
Just so we’re all calling a spade a spade, tea party roots = Koch roots
Now the right hates any part of the government that doesn't hold a gun
They hate parts that hold guns as well, because they tell them what they can and can't do with guns
Interesting, I was going off the NYT summary when the news broke:
Forty years ago, when Chevron was decided by a unanimous but short-handed six-member Supreme Court, with three justices recused, it was generally viewed as a victory for conservatives. In response to a challenge from environmental groups, the justices sustained a Reagan-era interpretation of the Clean Air Act that loosened regulation of emissions, saying the Environmental Protection Agency’s reading of the statute was “a reasonable construction” that was “entitled to deference.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/supreme-court-chevron-ruling.html
Completely disagree. First of all there's a difference in Reagan Era and Reagan endorsed. However it's not just Chevron we're talking about here. It's the idea of dismantling the regulatory state in general. That's much older than Chevron. That sentiment can be traced back to Phyllis Schlafly. That sentiment can be traced back to the John Birch Society. That sentiment can be traced back to the business plot.
Ideological successors. Agree with your post.
They've been coming for Chevron for at least 50 years, but they also fight regulation at every turn.
Chevron is 40 years old. How can you come after it for at least 50 years?
Before Chevron there was Skidmore Deference, and they came for that.
Maybe I should have said they've been coming for all deference. Or ~50 years, for the pedants.
It's a compromise position. Under Chevron, Conservative justices couldn't strike down regulations that put limits on corporations. At the same time, more liberal justices (leftist justices don't really exist) couldn't reverse agencies that had been captured and start ending regulations.
This ruling only makes sense for their position if they think they can hold onto the judiciary indefinitely.
Able? Not with the current House. Willing? Also no, progressives are calling for it.
Lmao they had so many chances to codify everything and never did. They'll just throw it as yet another carrot on the stick and use it for election propaganda. "Vote for us if you want us to codify that" and then after elected they'll just act like it never happened.
Tbf, they probably didn't anticipate the courts overturning decades of precedent when they last had a filibuster proof supermajority 12 years ago (I don't think any of us saw this getting so, so bad back then), so this is a bit of a stretch
They weren't paying attention. The conservative legal sphere had been dreaming of ending Chevron deference for a long time, and the conservative SCOTUS justices have been signaling it as well.
It's a Good Thing the Justices didn't take ANY Money or Gifts from Billionaires who stand to gain BILLIONS of dollars from this decision!
They’re not bribes, they’re gratuities ….. given before important court decisions
No, that's still a bribe. They get paid after the decision and as of their latest ruling it's totally legal.
I am hopeful this could pass. Congress knows they are not technical subject matter experts. They don't like looking like fools when they talk about the Internet being a bunch of tubes. They want to be able to pass legislation and delegate the details to experts, at least to some degree. They don't want the overhead of that nuance and detail it takes agencies to define. I am surprised the judiciary wants that responsibility..
With agencies Congress has a scapegoat to drag in the muck and make them look good on TV. Without agencies, Congress is responsible for their own laws and being very explicit about some technical details. They look bad if shit breaks now.
This ruling doesn't stop the ability to delegate. It stops the deference to the executive branch to interpret however they feel. If their interpretation is good, it can stand. Congress doesn't have to say how much heavy metal is acceptable in drinking water, it just has to explicitly say setting a limit is the responsibility of the agency.
But doesn't a lot of this come down to "ambiguity" in statutes which can be attributed to lack of technical expertise. In the example of you make is there a difference between:
Congress saying the agency is responsible for ensuring drinking water is safe vs the agency is limiting heavy metals in drinking water? If a statute says the agency is responsible for regulating drinking water safety including, but not limited to, heavy metal levels can they also regulate microplastics?
If ambiguity is at play doesn't that require congress to provide more technical definition to some degree?
It's crazy it goes to the courts. In an early published ruling Gorush's ruling was talking about the compound of laughing gas because he confuse it for an air pollutant...
It depends on how they wrote the law, the destructive device rule is fairly good imo as it both covers the things congress wants and anything that is using a different name for the same result and gives the attorney general the ability to exclude things for sporting only.
(4) The term “destructive device” means— (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas— (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and (C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. 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.
If their interpretation is good, it can stand
With Chevron, it would stand, without it the court gets to ignore all reason and reject an agency's interpretation even if it's sane and carefully constructed by experts. The court gets to challenge every individual decision and reason made by the agency which the law doesn't make explicit
As the ruling said. The chevron defense hadn't been used since 2016, agencies have their opinions overturned or narrowed more recently. Courts were already disagreeing with agencies, and the standard to take their interpretation was just wasting time.
As stated in the dissent, ignoring your own precedence for years to create an impression that a useful legal principle isn't useful and to create an excuse to overturn it doesn't make for an actual reasonable argument to overturn it.
On the flip side, if the agencies' interpretation is pants-on-head crazy it also stands under Chevron but shouldn't under a fair examination by a court.
"holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable"
So by definition no
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
433 points (99.3% liked)
politics
18065 readers
4308 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS