5 ms·

This is as much a blow to chevron deference than anything. This is a good thing.

by brodouevencode 4y ago

xpe 4y ago
Please explain.
- willis936 4y ago
  I'll attempt to explain on their behalf: technocracy bad, regulatory capture good.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Don't put words in other peoples' mouths. Especially strawman words. It's not honest, it's not nice, and it's against the site guidelines.
- brodouevencode 4y ago
  This is a decent definition: "administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer." The ruling basically undermines the previous notion of the judiciary deferring to an administrative agency, because it just didn't, therefore forcing the legislature to be more explicit in its desires.
jrochkind1 4y ago
Why do you see a blow to the chevron deference doctrine as a good thing? I'd say that the doctrine properly tries to keep the supreme court, the least democratically responsible branch of US federal government, from being the most powerful of the three branches of government.
- brodouevencode 4y ago
  > being the most powerful of the three branches of government. By pushing the responsibility to lifelong bureaucrats? I honestly don't see a difference there.
  - camgunz 4y ago
    The "lifelong bureaucrats" are typically (but not always, see the CDC) policy and subject matter experts. Chevron deference's main purpose is to free Congress from writing exhaustive laws. If the executive branch does something Congress doesn't like, they can change the law and make it more specific. Of course Congress does almost nothing, so when you say it has to take legislative action to regulate something, what you're effectively doing is deregulating it. This decision follows more from the Court where they pick and choose what they doom in this way based on their personal politics, contrary to precedent and reliance interests. We shouldn't think too hard about what this Court does; it's a nakedly ideological power grab that's the endgame of a generation long effort by Conservatives to control the US through the court as they slide further and further into permanent minority status. Future generations will look back on this era as one of infamy.
    - laverya 4y ago
      > The "lifelong bureaucrats" are typically (but not always, see the CDC) policy and subject matter experts. We really, really needed one of those groups of unelected bureaucrats to be policy and subject matter experts, and they weren't. But don't worry, all the others we haven't actually checked are!
      - camgunz 4y ago
        I'll try and read into your low-effort dismissal here a critique of my singling out the CDC and explain further: The CDC is a relatively unique case of an institution that was really gutted by a mistake decades ago (the swine flu vaccine in the late 70s [0]) and then got some pretty bad Trump-nominated leadership [1] [2]). Elections matter, it turns out. [0]: https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/991570372/michael-lewis-the-premonition-is-a-sweeping-indictment-of-the-cdc https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/991570372/michael-lewis-the-p... [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/cdc-redfield-aids-walter-reed-army-investigation/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/cdc-redfield-aids-wa... [2]: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/18/cdc-director-avoids-congressional-testimony-297284 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/18/cdc-director-avoid...
- 31835843 4y ago
  The Supreme Court can just ignore its own precedents, so this doesn’t really help.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Supreme Court can just ignore its own precedents I’m not a fan of the current Court, but stare decisis has never been binding. Landmark rulings are landmarks because the create or break precedent. Courts have been doing that since there were courts.
    - camgunz 4y ago
      Stare decides bound Casey, at least. It's never before been ignored when it established a new individual right (Dobbs overturns precedent to remove a right, which has never been done before). This really can't be minimized as "Courts gonna Court".
- mn3gs 4y ago
  The least democratically responsible branch of the US federal government is the administrative state.
  - gruez 4y ago
    How are civil servants less responsible than supreme court justices that are appointed for life? At least with civil servants they can be fired.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    How do you see the Supreme Court as being more democratically responsible than the administrative personel of the executive branch? To me, it seems clear that the "administrative state" is overseen by the president, who can overrule them and fire individual people, and the president is elected by the people every four years, and that makes the executive branch more democratically responsible than the supreme court, which is not elected by the people, and who serve for life with no democratic accountability. But I'm open to hearing your argument for how the supreme court is more democratically responsible than the offices of the executive branch! Maybe we don't mean the same thing by "democratically responsible".
khuey 4y ago
I haven't read the opinion in detail but it doesn't appear they touched Chevron, merely ruling this particular case falls under the preexisting major questions doctrine/exception to Chevron.
- voxic11 4y ago
  If you read the dissent they seem to be claiming the majority opinion greatly expands the circumstances in which the major questions exception applies. Which would be a big hit to Chevron making it apply in far fewer cases.

This is as much a blow to chevron deference than anything. This is a good thing.

xpe 4y ago

Please explain.

willis936 4y ago
I'll attempt to explain on their behalf: technocracy bad, regulatory capture good.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Don't put words in other peoples' mouths. Especially strawman words. It's not honest, it's not nice, and it's against the site guidelines.
brodouevencode 4y ago
This is a decent definition: "administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer." The ruling basically undermines the previous notion of the judiciary deferring to an administrative agency, because it just didn't, therefore forcing the legislature to be more explicit in its desires.

jrochkind1 4y ago

Why do you see a blow to the chevron deference doctrine as a good thing? I'd say that the doctrine properly tries to keep the supreme court, the least democratically responsible branch of US federal government, from being the most powerful of the three branches of government.

brodouevencode 4y ago
> being the most powerful of the three branches of government. By pushing the responsibility to lifelong bureaucrats? I honestly don't see a difference there.
- camgunz 4y ago
  The "lifelong bureaucrats" are typically (but not always, see the CDC) policy and subject matter experts. Chevron deference's main purpose is to free Congress from writing exhaustive laws. If the executive branch does something Congress doesn't like, they can change the law and make it more specific. Of course Congress does almost nothing, so when you say it has to take legislative action to regulate something, what you're effectively doing is deregulating it. This decision follows more from the Court where they pick and choose what they doom in this way based on their personal politics, contrary to precedent and reliance interests. We shouldn't think too hard about what this Court does; it's a nakedly ideological power grab that's the endgame of a generation long effort by Conservatives to control the US through the court as they slide further and further into permanent minority status. Future generations will look back on this era as one of infamy.
  - laverya 4y ago
    > The "lifelong bureaucrats" are typically (but not always, see the CDC) policy and subject matter experts. We really, really needed one of those groups of unelected bureaucrats to be policy and subject matter experts, and they weren't. But don't worry, all the others we haven't actually checked are!
    - camgunz 4y ago
      I'll try and read into your low-effort dismissal here a critique of my singling out the CDC and explain further: The CDC is a relatively unique case of an institution that was really gutted by a mistake decades ago (the swine flu vaccine in the late 70s [0]) and then got some pretty bad Trump-nominated leadership [1] [2]). Elections matter, it turns out. [0]: https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/991570372/michael-lewis-the-premonition-is-a-sweeping-indictment-of-the-cdc https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/991570372/michael-lewis-the-p... [1]: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/cdc-redfield-aids-walter-reed-army-investigation/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/04/politics/cdc-redfield-aids-wa... [2]: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/18/cdc-director-avoids-congressional-testimony-297284 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/18/cdc-director-avoid...
31835843 4y ago
The Supreme Court can just ignore its own precedents, so this doesn’t really help.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Supreme Court can just ignore its own precedents I’m not a fan of the current Court, but stare decisis has never been binding. Landmark rulings are landmarks because the create or break precedent. Courts have been doing that since there were courts.
  - camgunz 4y ago
    Stare decides bound Casey, at least. It's never before been ignored when it established a new individual right (Dobbs overturns precedent to remove a right, which has never been done before). This really can't be minimized as "Courts gonna Court".
mn3gs 4y ago
The least democratically responsible branch of the US federal government is the administrative state.
- gruez 4y ago
  How are civil servants less responsible than supreme court justices that are appointed for life? At least with civil servants they can be fired.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  How do you see the Supreme Court as being more democratically responsible than the administrative personel of the executive branch? To me, it seems clear that the "administrative state" is overseen by the president, who can overrule them and fire individual people, and the president is elected by the people every four years, and that makes the executive branch more democratically responsible than the supreme court, which is not elected by the people, and who serve for life with no democratic accountability. But I'm open to hearing your argument for how the supreme court is more democratically responsible than the offices of the executive branch! Maybe we don't mean the same thing by "democratically responsible".

khuey 4y ago

I haven't read the opinion in detail but it doesn't appear they touched Chevron, merely ruling this particular case falls under the preexisting major questions doctrine/exception to Chevron.

voxic11 4y ago
If you read the dissent they seem to be claiming the majority opinion greatly expands the circumstances in which the major questions exception applies. Which would be a big hit to Chevron making it apply in far fewer cases.