5 ms·

Hardly, overturning chevron especially in the polarized grid locked congress of today would be chaos. Also practically the legislative branch cannot reasonably

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
    Buying less grain obviously effects grain prices, and since the grain market is interstate it effects interstate commerce.
    - UIUC_06 4y ago
      So "commerce" takes place even when you don't buy or sell anything? Is that what you're saying?
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      I'd like an example of any action that doesn't affect interstate commerce by that line of reasoning.
      - colinmhayes 4y ago
        That’s the secret, there are none. People are arguing congress can make abortion laws now because of the interstate commerce clause, anything goes at this point.
  - origin_path 4y ago
    Huh wow. How many of these totally illogical scotus judgements are out there exactly? No wonder the US left is freaked out by the new supreme court. It feels like they could pretty deeply change how US law and government works in favour of state's rights just by vacating obviously abusive rulings from earlier eras.
    - yieldcrv 4y ago
      There is usually a pattern, and there is a pattern now. As you notice, it is unnecessary hyperbole to consider the current court to be the odd one. The only thing “activist” about it is which cases it chooses to accept to rule on at all, as there are circumstances where the court can deny to hear a case under its appellate jurisdiction. But when choosing to hear a case, it is predictable what it will do to vacate an “abusive” interpretation that was in the benefit of the federal government subjugating all of the states. Many of these benefits can be recreated by Congress, and that is the process necessary to do it. If consensus within Congress is not possible, then the people will have to focus on something else for the time being.
SoftTalker 4y ago
> the legislative branch cannot reasonably dictate laws about every single thing That's a feature, because there should not be laws about every single thing. If a law is ambiguous, a judge should decide how it applies. Not an bureaucrat in a governemnt agency.
- manquer 4y ago
  Everything cannot be litigated. Litigation is expensive and time consuming. Also there are not enough judges to take that kind of work load. Judgements by lower courts don’t set precedents, so the same issue would be litigated 1000s of times each judge of jury giving different results. Higher courts have even less judges. Laws are guidelines, the real details of any law is in the code or regulations built around it. Chevron is about whether regulations have force of law or not .
  - Gormo 4y ago
    > Everything cannot be litigated. Litigation is expensive and time consuming. Anything that can't be litigated should not be done. The due process clause is there for a reason -- if the only mechanism that ensures that due process is being followed, and the constitution is being obeyed, is not able to be applied to the execution of a given policy, then that policy should be preemptively off-limits until it can be retooled to make the necessary oversight feasible.
  - UIUC_06 4y ago
    You might want to study up on legal drafting & construction. It IS possible to write laws that are reasonably broad without just saying "the agency will do whatever it wants here." Maybe it's not easy, but that's what the lawyers learn in law school.
    - manquer 4y ago
      The same good lawyers can also write good regulation that is transparent , clear and unambiguous if they could write good law. Laws take a long time to change, regulations can change faster. I may not know much about legal drafting & construction but in my experience negotiating enough contracts to know that it is very very hard to articulate and cover all the scenarios that you can encounter. No lawyer I have worked with has drafted something so unambiguous and perfect that there was no room for interpretation or conflicting clauses and everyone was clear and there was no dispute. There is no reason to trust the judiciary anymore than the executive, they are just as capricious, inefficient and bureaucratic as the executive.

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
  Buying less grain obviously effects grain prices, and since the grain market is interstate it effects interstate commerce.
  - UIUC_06 4y ago
    So "commerce" takes place even when you don't buy or sell anything? Is that what you're saying?
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    I'd like an example of any action that doesn't affect interstate commerce by that line of reasoning.
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      That’s the secret, there are none. People are arguing congress can make abortion laws now because of the interstate commerce clause, anything goes at this point.
- origin_path 4y ago
  Huh wow. How many of these totally illogical scotus judgements are out there exactly? No wonder the US left is freaked out by the new supreme court. It feels like they could pretty deeply change how US law and government works in favour of state's rights just by vacating obviously abusive rulings from earlier eras.
  - yieldcrv 4y ago
    There is usually a pattern, and there is a pattern now. As you notice, it is unnecessary hyperbole to consider the current court to be the odd one. The only thing “activist” about it is which cases it chooses to accept to rule on at all, as there are circumstances where the court can deny to hear a case under its appellate jurisdiction. But when choosing to hear a case, it is predictable what it will do to vacate an “abusive” interpretation that was in the benefit of the federal government subjugating all of the states. Many of these benefits can be recreated by Congress, and that is the process necessary to do it. If consensus within Congress is not possible, then the people will have to focus on something else for the time being.

SoftTalker 4y ago

> the legislative branch cannot reasonably dictate laws about every single thing That's a feature, because there should not be laws about every single thing. If a law is ambiguous, a judge should decide how it applies. Not an bureaucrat in a governemnt agency.

manquer 4y ago
Everything cannot be litigated. Litigation is expensive and time consuming. Also there are not enough judges to take that kind of work load. Judgements by lower courts don’t set precedents, so the same issue would be litigated 1000s of times each judge of jury giving different results. Higher courts have even less judges. Laws are guidelines, the real details of any law is in the code or regulations built around it. Chevron is about whether regulations have force of law or not .
- Gormo 4y ago
  > Everything cannot be litigated. Litigation is expensive and time consuming. Anything that can't be litigated should not be done. The due process clause is there for a reason -- if the only mechanism that ensures that due process is being followed, and the constitution is being obeyed, is not able to be applied to the execution of a given policy, then that policy should be preemptively off-limits until it can be retooled to make the necessary oversight feasible.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  You might want to study up on legal drafting & construction. It IS possible to write laws that are reasonably broad without just saying "the agency will do whatever it wants here." Maybe it's not easy, but that's what the lawyers learn in law school.
  - manquer 4y ago
    The same good lawyers can also write good regulation that is transparent , clear and unambiguous if they could write good law. Laws take a long time to change, regulations can change faster. I may not know much about legal drafting & construction but in my experience negotiating enough contracts to know that it is very very hard to articulate and cover all the scenarios that you can encounter. No lawyer I have worked with has drafted something so unambiguous and perfect that there was no room for interpretation or conflicting clauses and everyone was clear and there was no dispute. There is no reason to trust the judiciary anymore than the executive, they are just as capricious, inefficient and bureaucratic as the executive.