3 ms·

One could argue Chevron deference undermines judicial oversight, excessively empowers administrative agencies, and shifts interpretive authority from courts to

One could argue Chevron deference undermines judicial oversight, excessively empowers administrative agencies, and shifts interpretive authority from courts to agencies, leading to inconsistent and politically influenced interpretations of statutes.

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
This implies that courts are not politically influenced and inconsistent themselves.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  Highlighted by the fact that this ruling is only up for debate since the political bent of the court has shifted enough to start reversing what has long been precedent from earlier courts with different political sensibilities.
wahern 3y ago
Chevron deference was originally defended by conservatives concerned about judicial activism, particularly wrt liberal judges holding sway over regulatory policy. A cynic would point out conservative enthusiasm for Chevron waxed and waned according to how liberal they perceived the federal courts, and that now that conservatives have an unassailable SCOTUS majority and a solid power base in the circuit courts they're finding intolerable those judicial restraints. But to be fair, the liberal contingent is mirroring the same behavior, becoming defenders of a rule they once opposed.
falcolas 3y ago
Should the judicial branch have greater say than a specialist when considering specialist topics? Such as food safety, medical procedures, drug approvals, thresholds for minimizing the environmental impact of millions of chemicals, aircraft maintenance standards, and thousands of other laws maintained by agencies. Seems foolish to burden the courts with the additional work when they (should) just defer to the specialists when the topic comes up in court.
- nickff 3y ago
  >"Should the judicial branch have greater say than a specialist when considering specialist topics?" Should Congress or the President?
  - falcolas 3y ago
    Both of whom also do (or should) defer to specialists. Consultants, lobbyists (not all of which is corrupted by money, though much of it is), hearings, depositions, etc. Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example, does not testify in front of congress just for the press.
    - w4 3y ago
      > Both of whom also do (or should) defer to specialists. Consultants, lobbyists (not all of which is corrupted by money, though much of it is), hearings, depositions, etc. So too does the judiciary, in addition to the same hearings and depositions you reference in other branches: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago

This implies that courts are not politically influenced and inconsistent themselves.

mikeyouse 3y ago
Highlighted by the fact that this ruling is only up for debate since the political bent of the court has shifted enough to start reversing what has long been precedent from earlier courts with different political sensibilities.

wahern 3y ago

Chevron deference was originally defended by conservatives concerned about judicial activism, particularly wrt liberal judges holding sway over regulatory policy. A cynic would point out conservative enthusiasm for Chevron waxed and waned according to how liberal they perceived the federal courts, and that now that conservatives have an unassailable SCOTUS majority and a solid power base in the circuit courts they're finding intolerable those judicial restraints. But to be fair, the liberal contingent is mirroring the same behavior, becoming defenders of a rule they once opposed.

falcolas 3y ago

Should the judicial branch have greater say than a specialist when considering specialist topics? Such as food safety, medical procedures, drug approvals, thresholds for minimizing the environmental impact of millions of chemicals, aircraft maintenance standards, and thousands of other laws maintained by agencies. Seems foolish to burden the courts with the additional work when they (should) just defer to the specialists when the topic comes up in court.

nickff 3y ago
>"Should the judicial branch have greater say than a specialist when considering specialist topics?" Should Congress or the President?
- falcolas 3y ago
  Both of whom also do (or should) defer to specialists. Consultants, lobbyists (not all of which is corrupted by money, though much of it is), hearings, depositions, etc. Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example, does not testify in front of congress just for the press.
  - w4 3y ago
    > Both of whom also do (or should) defer to specialists. Consultants, lobbyists (not all of which is corrupted by money, though much of it is), hearings, depositions, etc. So too does the judiciary, in addition to the same hearings and depositions you reference in other branches: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]