8 ms·

There's a SCOTUS decision, nickname Chevron deference which is due to be overturned, and I think most of the posters here should be in favor of overturning it.

There's a SCOTUS decision, nickname Chevron deference which is due to be overturned, and I think most of the posters here should be in favor of overturning it. In AZ, I'm pretty sure the Legislature and Governor never intended that parents like this should be prosecuted, but DCS is interpreting their broad statutory authority that way. IANAL, but I believe it says that an administrative agency's interpretation of the law, if it considers the law ambiguous, should govern. Overturning it will mean that the Legislature and Governor make the laws, not the agencies. Yeah, that probably will mean that either nothing or the wrong thing (from your perspective) happens, but that's another problem.

Gormo 4y ago
Chevron deference is a federal doctrine related to self-interpretation of statutory powers by federal agencies. It has no direct relevance to state agencies operating under state law. Some states do/did have equivalent doctrines, but many have explicitly forbidden judicial deference to administrative agencies either via statute law or via binding precedent created by their own supreme courts. Everything being discussed in this thread is a matter of state-level policy that varies drastically among states, and has no direct relation to federal agencies or the way they apply federal statutes.
manquer 4y ago
Hardly, overturning chevron especially in the polarized grid locked congress of today would be chaos. Also practically the legislative branch cannot reasonably dictate laws about every single thing . Neither are they experts nor are is there remotely enough staff in all of Capitol Hill to do that. Overturning chevron would take away force of law from regulation and make governing more legislative and judicial rather than executive. Government cannot function with regulators unable to do anything unless congress or court saying so explicitly. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a ton of over regulation or bad ones, removing Chevron is not a solution for that though. PS : Arizona where this story is from already overturned chevron at the state level
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  The roles that the federal legislative branch has assumed over the past 100 years are misguided and mostly based under an interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and how much power can be delegated away from the legislature. I can hold that observation and also realize that it will be wildly disruptive to make an adverse ruling on that power. I can also see there are other ways to reach the same result, its really not rogue or illegitimate for a court to simply say "leave that to your elected representatives", and thats what the court is going to do. Its extremely predictable and does not require any circular logic to do so. I don't think the disruptive nature is a reason to avoid doing it, as a consensus bridging solution would be resilient as well, antifragile.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > mostly based under an interpretation of the interstate commerce clause The case that established the federal government’s wide Commerce Clause powers is truly bizarre: “An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone ‘interstate’ commerce (described in the Constitution as ‘Commerce... among the several states’). The Supreme Court disagreed: ‘Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'’” In essence, not buying or selling wheat that is grown and consumed locally was somehow interstate commerce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
grapeskin 4y ago
> Overturning it will mean that the Legislature and Governor make the laws, not the agencies. In a country where Congress has been deadlocked for decades and a large number of states are racing to push the absolute limits of what they can take in corporate bribes and push moral crusades that'll be forgotten 5 years from now but have lifelong consequences, that's going to be an absolute disaster and it's mindblowing that it's being cheered on. Some states might be better off. A few are trying to shoot their heads off and force others to do it with them.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  > In a country where Congress has been deadlocked for decades So your answer to the problem of a government you don't like is: invent another one? A better answer is just to write laws more carefully, broad enough to cover unforeseen circumstances, yet not so broad that they can be stretched to mean absolutely anything. That IS challenging. On the other hand, there are a lot of lawyers working for our Congresspeople, so they should be up to the challenge.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Your better answer isn't possible. Not only is passing laws basically impossible at this point, but giving bureaucratic institutions authority to solve unforeseen problems is a good thing. It just isn't possible for lawmakers to conceive of every loophole and edge case. It's too slow to pass a new law every time one comes up, if it's even possible at all.
    - UIUC_06 4y ago
      You are throwing up a false and dishonest choice: it's not "conceive of every loophole and edge case" vs. "let bureaucrats do whatever they want."
      - grapeskin 4y ago
        Bureaucrats picked by the executive branch, elected every 4 years. If anything Americans have a better chance of getting things they want by picking a president who will implement their policies than they will hoping the legislative branch gets around to doing anything ever.
tzs 4y ago
DCS is a state agency, not a federal agency. Chevron only concerned federal agencies.
colinmhayes 4y ago
West Virginia v EPA is the case that overturned the chevron case you're complaining about. I'm not sure that it applies to state agencies though, might only be federal.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  you & the other poster are right, of course -- SCOTUS only deals with Federal controversies. They do set a (non-binding) direction for state Supreme Courts, though.

Gormo 4y ago

Chevron deference is a federal doctrine related to self-interpretation of statutory powers by federal agencies. It has no direct relevance to state agencies operating under state law. Some states do/did have equivalent doctrines, but many have explicitly forbidden judicial deference to administrative agencies either via statute law or via binding precedent created by their own supreme courts. Everything being discussed in this thread is a matter of state-level policy that varies drastically among states, and has no direct relation to federal agencies or the way they apply federal statutes.

manquer 4y ago

Hardly, overturning chevron especially in the polarized grid locked congress of today would be chaos. Also practically the legislative branch cannot reasonably dictate laws about every single thing . Neither are they experts nor are is there remotely enough staff in all of Capitol Hill to do that. Overturning chevron would take away force of law from regulation and make governing more legislative and judicial rather than executive. Government cannot function with regulators unable to do anything unless congress or court saying so explicitly. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a ton of over regulation or bad ones, removing Chevron is not a solution for that though. PS : Arizona where this story is from already overturned chevron at the state level

yieldcrv 4y ago
The roles that the federal legislative branch has assumed over the past 100 years are misguided and mostly based under an interpretation of the interstate commerce clause and how much power can be delegated away from the legislature. I can hold that observation and also realize that it will be wildly disruptive to make an adverse ruling on that power. I can also see there are other ways to reach the same result, its really not rogue or illegitimate for a court to simply say "leave that to your elected representatives", and thats what the court is going to do. Its extremely predictable and does not require any circular logic to do so. I don't think the disruptive nature is a reason to avoid doing it, as a consensus bridging solution would be resilient as well, antifragile.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > mostly based under an interpretation of the interstate commerce clause The case that established the federal government’s wide Commerce Clause powers is truly bizarre: “An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone ‘interstate’ commerce (described in the Constitution as ‘Commerce... among the several states’). The Supreme Court disagreed: ‘Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'’” In essence, not buying or selling wheat that is grown and consumed locally was somehow interstate commerce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
  - colinmhayes 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

grapeskin 4y ago

> Overturning it will mean that the Legislature and Governor make the laws, not the agencies. In a country where Congress has been deadlocked for decades and a large number of states are racing to push the absolute limits of what they can take in corporate bribes and push moral crusades that'll be forgotten 5 years from now but have lifelong consequences, that's going to be an absolute disaster and it's mindblowing that it's being cheered on. Some states might be better off. A few are trying to shoot their heads off and force others to do it with them.

UIUC_06 4y ago
> In a country where Congress has been deadlocked for decades So your answer to the problem of a government you don't like is: invent another one? A better answer is just to write laws more carefully, broad enough to cover unforeseen circumstances, yet not so broad that they can be stretched to mean absolutely anything. That IS challenging. On the other hand, there are a lot of lawyers working for our Congresspeople, so they should be up to the challenge.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Your better answer isn't possible. Not only is passing laws basically impossible at this point, but giving bureaucratic institutions authority to solve unforeseen problems is a good thing. It just isn't possible for lawmakers to conceive of every loophole and edge case. It's too slow to pass a new law every time one comes up, if it's even possible at all.
  - UIUC_06 4y ago
    You are throwing up a false and dishonest choice: it's not "conceive of every loophole and edge case" vs. "let bureaucrats do whatever they want."
    - grapeskin 4y ago
      Bureaucrats picked by the executive branch, elected every 4 years. If anything Americans have a better chance of getting things they want by picking a president who will implement their policies than they will hoping the legislative branch gets around to doing anything ever.

tzs 4y ago

DCS is a state agency, not a federal agency. Chevron only concerned federal agencies.

colinmhayes 4y ago

West Virginia v EPA is the case that overturned the chevron case you're complaining about. I'm not sure that it applies to state agencies though, might only be federal.

UIUC_06 4y ago
you & the other poster are right, of course -- SCOTUS only deals with Federal controversies. They do set a (non-binding) direction for state Supreme Courts, though.