7 ms·

Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron

61 points by jawns 3y ago

lovich 3y ago
Regardless of which side of the political aisle you’re one, this Court is going to get one of the thicker chapters in the history books with all the precedents they have, or expected to, overturn. Roberts had a reputation of wanting his Court to maintain respect as a neutral party. I wish I could hear his private thoughts on the Court nowadays
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  I feel the structure of the US since the New Deal is an aberration, and the court has simply refrained from doing inconvenient things, contorting itself to avoid doing disruptive inconvenient things. That wasnt a partisan view in my world, just an obscure one, until the only ones willing to match that view were extremely partisan. This court has expressed and shown that it wont refrain from doing disruptive, inconvenient things and I haven't found any of its decisions to be contortions or surprising, after having read those decisions I often feel like the narrative is the opposite of what I perceive, the media and people that want a different outcome say “they’re legislating from the bench!” when I see the prior court acting like a super congress with entire multipronged frameworks, and this court saying “yeaaaaahhh voters and elected representatives should decide that” whether there is a consensus failure or not, forcing consensus to be made where it was avoided indefinitely. I just dont see that as extreme, extreme would have been it using its privilege to say “yeah that's banned now across the whole republic” and they dont do that, its all quite professional I dont know man, they are just waiting for someone to bring challenges to every remaining vestige of the New Deal and its expanded interpretation of interstate commerce, given that the 1930s court struck down most of the New Deal until it was threatened, I dont really find finishing the job to be so extreme, just unfamiliar because we were all raised post-New Deal
  - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
    Almost nobody alive today remembers America before the New Deal. We've lost the institutional memory of what works and doesn't work in that environment. It is very much a radical position to undo the New Deal consensus.
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      yes, but if you study US history its like a distortion field has been pulled up, where the President that got the New Deal passed is heralded in all history books for every action he ever did, while in reality most of his New Deal got struck down by the courts and he threatened to pack the court with his people. Like... what? And everything that's left over has been used to control all facets of life, subjugate all states with an interpretation of all commerce being interstate commerce, with any state level autonomy being a gift from Congress if they remembered to include an intrastate exemption Its a "federal government" by name alone as there is no federalism left. Federalism could be interesting. It will have redundancies, wild differences. But that's the actual country we herald in our history books while we've done something else for the last 100 years. The court has even expressed interest in going back further: revisiting the insular cases - the status of many of our territories and whether we should possess them at all - for reasons I find extremely universally agreeable, nowadays. If you read the SCOTUS decisions from 1901 they are super racist reasons why we have our territories. The only reason people would disagree is because they either haven't read them or they want to avoid the inconvenience. The constitution doesn't say "if its inconvenient ignore these articles, amendments and don't interpret me". Self determination is decided by the people of the territory in coordination with Congress. so our radical court is going to undo racist rulings and disrupt an American colonizer streak? bring the cases, the challenge to a territory's status will probably even come from the left once people catch on with the most productive way to operate with this court I get it, its a paradoxical standard, yes, its radical to do something we're all unfamiliar with. yes, a political entity with the adjective radical is a radical political entity. but are we using this in the colloquial way of illegitimate? no, not at all.
      - MasterYoda900 3y ago
        I don’t understand what you’re saying. What’s wrong with the current interpretation of interstate commerce? What is that interpretation? Are you arguing for the dismantling of Social Security? Medicare? Are you arguing for Congress letting go of US territories to become their own sovereign countries? What if they want to remain part of the U.S.?
  - nojito 3y ago
    >I feel the structure of the US since the New Deal is an aberration, and the court has simply refrained from doing inconvenient things, contorting itself to avoid doing disruptive inconvenient things. That wasnt a partisan view in my world, just an obscure one, until the only ones willing to match that view were extremely partisan. >This court has expressed and shown that it wont refrain from doing disruptive, inconvenient things and I haven't found any of its decisions to be contortions or surprising, after having read those decisions You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era The immediate period before the new deal era that is universally ridiculed by every member of the Court today?
    - yieldcrv 3y ago
      What I expect the court to do is leave absences of law, because Congress or the states neglected to create durable consensus. Its a predictive quality, instead of one based on feelings. Until I bring a case myself, I’m not arguing or advocating for anything, just listening far better than someone using their energy to protest something they have no control over. Your example, although I consider it a strawman, I think also shows that even what people believe about this current court is not unique. If they dont like this court, they really wouldnt have liked that court.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  Roberts is pretty open in his opinions. I doubt that his private thoughts differ much from what he writes in his dissents or concurrences. Unless you mean court gossip, which is probably at a minimum today since we still don't know who leaked the Dobbs opinion.
- ChainOfFools 3y ago
  I've never understood this position from him. I'll admit that I've never read anything he's written about it so I'm probably speaking out of turn, and that there is a surprising death to this view that I'm not seeing because I haven't seriously looked into it, at least not from his perspective. That said, I'm not sure where someone could come to the conclusion that the court should remain neutral when courts, especially the Supreme Court, mark the point where a dispute is resolved not in terms of how to follow the existing law, but why the existing law is the way it is, and whether it should be patchedto reflect a new understanding of why our values are what they are. The "correct" place to do this is of course in the legislature, but it moves on a comparatively glacial time frame and in some cases can never come to a clear actionable position on issues in a timely manner, while harms are actively taking place without remedy. The neutral stance is implicitly conservative, disregarding changes in our understanding of why we value what we value, and instead focusing on mechanical details of how to paper over ever widening disparities, constantly pointing at the legislature to sort them out. If the court had the power to force legislature to come to a decision one way or the l other it would be different I suppose, but this would of course put the Court under the legislature, defeating the purpose of separated powers. I acknowledge that the issue is quite complex. still from the outside, to put it bluntly, his stance looks like a rationalization to shirk an essential responsibility he has been uniquely entrusted with.
- commandlinefan 3y ago
  > maintain respect as a neutral party It seems like most of their headline-worthy actions have been reversing the times that the court did not act as a neutral party in the past.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  >> this Court is going to get one of the thicker chapters in the history books with all the precedents they have, or expected to, overturn This is false. The Roberts court has overruled previous decisions less often than previous courts, not more often. It will have one of the thinnest chapters in the history books, not one of the thickest. The Burger court overruled more decisions from 1969 to 1975 than the Roberts court has since it began in 2005. The Warren court has the thickest chapter in the history books. It overruled decisions at a higher rate than even the Burger court. I am guessing that the real difference is that you agree with the major decisions of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, and disagree with the major decisions of the Roberts court.
  - lovich 3y ago
    Nah, went through what 18 years of relatively little rocking the boat in overturning precedence and then overturning roe v wade and now the chevron defense in 2-3 years? Maybe the courts history as a whole has less overturning but these past few years have been markedly faster
    - rufus_foreman 3y ago
      >> and then overturning roe v wade Sure, that helps make my point, thanks. Planned Parenthood v. Casey overturned parts of Roe v. Wade. That was in 1992 under the Rehnquist court. If overturning precedence is bad, the Rehnquist court is bad for overturning parts of Roe v. Wade.
      - lovich 3y ago
        > Sure, that helps make my point, thanks. Don’t believe it did. Feel free to explain. You know I’m referring to Dobbs and the implied chevron defense overturning in a short period after that political makeup of the court fundamentally changed.
pyuser583 3y ago
I’ve seen liberal arguments for and against Chevron and conservative arguments for and against Chevron. This doesn’t seem to be a simple conservative/liberal thing.
- eschaton 3y ago
  But the specific reasoning of the arguments in the suit, and the arguments in the decision and dissent, will very much be of a liberal or conservative bent.
- jawns 3y ago
  I agree with you, which is why it's interesting to see the court divided based on its typical conservative/liberal line. To me, it's fundamentally about the separation of powers. Why, in this case, should the executive branch be given the power to interpret ambiguous laws, when that duty normally falls to the judicial branch? The response seems to be that the executive branch has some special expertise that makes them better suited. But courts routinely call in expert witnesses; as Justice Alito pointed out in the hearing, there are methods for resolving ambiguity when Chevron does not apply. So I could see a ruling that basically says, "Sure, we'll make use of the administration's expertise -- as testimony, not as a substitute for judges."
  - tw04 3y ago
    >Why, in this case, should the executive branch be given the power to interpret ambiguous laws, when that duty normally falls to the judicial branch? Because the court isn't nimble enough to do otherwise - they can take decades to even accept a case that may have real-world ramifications while they (sometimes intentionally) defer to even hear the case. Regardless of the theoretical discussion of who should own the decision, the reality of this decision will be corporations pillaging public goods (land/air/water) further than they already have because there will be no ability for the EPA and others to even have oversight of what they're doing. "But the law" won't really matter when your only option for drinking water is to go buy it from the store. We've seen: Corporations won't police themselves, even when it means doing otherwise kills people because it turns out the government never seems to penalize harshly enough to make that a profit-losing situation. Congress is perfectly happy ignoring issues unless it's politically inconvenient, even if they would all agree in private that the issue should probably be fixed. Heck often times they'll take a position they don't even believe just to be a contrarian.
remarkEon 3y ago
>The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement federal laws. I'm pretty skeptical that this is true. Who is training them? Training them in what? Reading laws and navigating bureaucracy? More ... >Kagan cited as one example a hypothetical bill to regulate artificial intelligence. Congress, she said, “knows there are going to be gaps because Congress can hardly see a week in the future.” So it would want people “who actually know about AI and are accountable to the political process to make decisions” about artificial intelligence. Courts, she emphasized, “don’t even know what the questions are about AI,” much less the answers. I'm not following why Kagan thinks this hypothetical helps her point. People who know about AI and are accountable to the political process are not bureaucrats in the federal agencies just as much as they are not the courts. I'll wait for the audio/transcript to come out because hopefully this is a misrepresentation of her question.
- pama 3y ago
  The government hires experts. See the example discussion in the post about regulating AI. Or think about the FDA, in the case of drugs, or the CIA for intelligence, the NSA for security (the A in the last two stands for Agency, which were so far covered by Chevron.)
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    Sure, no one denies that the government hires experts. The people who have a problem with Chevron deference would question if those "experts" have the ability to make rules outside of what congress actually set out to regulate. The question in these cases is if those experts can interpret the ambiguity in a statute to make rules that may or may not have actually been the intent of congress. Personally, I think the answer should be "no".
    - nielsbot 3y ago
      How do you know the intent of congress? Are you going to ask them about every ambiguity in a law? Why shouldn't experts in the relevant areas make their best determination? Do you have examples you're concerned about where Chevron doctrine is a problem? Seems strange for these fisherman to sue for relief and suddenly agencies no longer have the ability to interpret the laws that apply to them.
rayiner 3y ago
Chevron was controversial at the time it was introduced as well. The notion that courts weren’t the ultimate arbiters of what legal rules actually mean, but that judges have to defer to the legal interpretations of an executive branch agency, was not uncontroversial. It wasn’t entirely novel—some idea that agencies should get some sort of deference has been percolating around since basically the advent of the administrative state. And frankly, getting rid of Chevron won’t really end the debate either. Ultimately, there’s two different strands to the issue. On one hand, it makes no sense to say that administrative agencies (who aren’t even necessarily staffed by lawyers) should get deference on interpretative questions regarding things like agency jurisdiction. Chevron says agencies get deference in determining their own jurisdiction and that’s batty. On the other hand, there’s an attractive principle in there that where Congress makes these highly technical statutes making trade offs about particular matter controls the agency should have discretion in figuring out how to implement those directives.
RecycledEle 3y ago
The easy way our for a lazy congressman is to copy-and-paste the current regulations into a bill (all of them,) sponsor it, and get it passed by the end of the week. Then submit another bill that makes it the duty of the commissioner of the blah-blah agency to submit a bill to congress every year that fixes whatever problems (s)he thinks need fixing. Give them a budget for a couple of lawyers to do the drafting and suggest they have an internal email address for employees to suggest changes to the lawyers. When the proposed bill is submitted by the commissioner, it goes onto the public record and the public has 180 days to comment. After that, whatever party is in power will take the parts they like, combine it with verbage from the lobbyists who pay for their vacations, and sponsor that bill. Yes, this introduces more delays into The System. I wish we (in the USA) would pass a constitutional amendment saying all laws must be published with markup for the dates changes take effect, so we can see what changes are coming soon. I also wish all new laws had to be published at least 1 year before they can take effect.

61 points by jawns 3y ago

Regardless of which side of the political aisle you’re one, this Court is going to get one of the thicker chapters in the history books with all the precedents they have, or expected to, overturn. Roberts had a reputation of wanting his Court to maintain respect as a neutral party. I wish I could hear his private thoughts on the Court nowadays

yieldcrv 3y ago
I feel the structure of the US since the New Deal is an aberration, and the court has simply refrained from doing inconvenient things, contorting itself to avoid doing disruptive inconvenient things. That wasnt a partisan view in my world, just an obscure one, until the only ones willing to match that view were extremely partisan. This court has expressed and shown that it wont refrain from doing disruptive, inconvenient things and I haven't found any of its decisions to be contortions or surprising, after having read those decisions I often feel like the narrative is the opposite of what I perceive, the media and people that want a different outcome say “they’re legislating from the bench!” when I see the prior court acting like a super congress with entire multipronged frameworks, and this court saying “yeaaaaahhh voters and elected representatives should decide that” whether there is a consensus failure or not, forcing consensus to be made where it was avoided indefinitely. I just dont see that as extreme, extreme would have been it using its privilege to say “yeah that's banned now across the whole republic” and they dont do that, its all quite professional I dont know man, they are just waiting for someone to bring challenges to every remaining vestige of the New Deal and its expanded interpretation of interstate commerce, given that the 1930s court struck down most of the New Deal until it was threatened, I dont really find finishing the job to be so extreme, just unfamiliar because we were all raised post-New Deal
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  Almost nobody alive today remembers America before the New Deal. We've lost the institutional memory of what works and doesn't work in that environment. It is very much a radical position to undo the New Deal consensus.
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    yes, but if you study US history its like a distortion field has been pulled up, where the President that got the New Deal passed is heralded in all history books for every action he ever did, while in reality most of his New Deal got struck down by the courts and he threatened to pack the court with his people. Like... what? And everything that's left over has been used to control all facets of life, subjugate all states with an interpretation of all commerce being interstate commerce, with any state level autonomy being a gift from Congress if they remembered to include an intrastate exemption Its a "federal government" by name alone as there is no federalism left. Federalism could be interesting. It will have redundancies, wild differences. But that's the actual country we herald in our history books while we've done something else for the last 100 years. The court has even expressed interest in going back further: revisiting the insular cases - the status of many of our territories and whether we should possess them at all - for reasons I find extremely universally agreeable, nowadays. If you read the SCOTUS decisions from 1901 they are super racist reasons why we have our territories. The only reason people would disagree is because they either haven't read them or they want to avoid the inconvenience. The constitution doesn't say "if its inconvenient ignore these articles, amendments and don't interpret me". Self determination is decided by the people of the territory in coordination with Congress. so our radical court is going to undo racist rulings and disrupt an American colonizer streak? bring the cases, the challenge to a territory's status will probably even come from the left once people catch on with the most productive way to operate with this court I get it, its a paradoxical standard, yes, its radical to do something we're all unfamiliar with. yes, a political entity with the adjective radical is a radical political entity. but are we using this in the colloquial way of illegitimate? no, not at all.
    - MasterYoda900 3y ago
      I don’t understand what you’re saying. What’s wrong with the current interpretation of interstate commerce? What is that interpretation? Are you arguing for the dismantling of Social Security? Medicare? Are you arguing for Congress letting go of US territories to become their own sovereign countries? What if they want to remain part of the U.S.?
- nojito 3y ago
  >I feel the structure of the US since the New Deal is an aberration, and the court has simply refrained from doing inconvenient things, contorting itself to avoid doing disruptive inconvenient things. That wasnt a partisan view in my world, just an obscure one, until the only ones willing to match that view were extremely partisan. >This court has expressed and shown that it wont refrain from doing disruptive, inconvenient things and I haven't found any of its decisions to be contortions or surprising, after having read those decisions You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era The immediate period before the new deal era that is universally ridiculed by every member of the Court today?
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    What I expect the court to do is leave absences of law, because Congress or the states neglected to create durable consensus. Its a predictive quality, instead of one based on feelings. Until I bring a case myself, I’m not arguing or advocating for anything, just listening far better than someone using their energy to protest something they have no control over. Your example, although I consider it a strawman, I think also shows that even what people believe about this current court is not unique. If they dont like this court, they really wouldnt have liked that court.
remarkEon 3y ago
Roberts is pretty open in his opinions. I doubt that his private thoughts differ much from what he writes in his dissents or concurrences. Unless you mean court gossip, which is probably at a minimum today since we still don't know who leaked the Dobbs opinion.
ChainOfFools 3y ago
I've never understood this position from him. I'll admit that I've never read anything he's written about it so I'm probably speaking out of turn, and that there is a surprising death to this view that I'm not seeing because I haven't seriously looked into it, at least not from his perspective. That said, I'm not sure where someone could come to the conclusion that the court should remain neutral when courts, especially the Supreme Court, mark the point where a dispute is resolved not in terms of how to follow the existing law, but why the existing law is the way it is, and whether it should be patchedto reflect a new understanding of why our values are what they are. The "correct" place to do this is of course in the legislature, but it moves on a comparatively glacial time frame and in some cases can never come to a clear actionable position on issues in a timely manner, while harms are actively taking place without remedy. The neutral stance is implicitly conservative, disregarding changes in our understanding of why we value what we value, and instead focusing on mechanical details of how to paper over ever widening disparities, constantly pointing at the legislature to sort them out. If the court had the power to force legislature to come to a decision one way or the l other it would be different I suppose, but this would of course put the Court under the legislature, defeating the purpose of separated powers. I acknowledge that the issue is quite complex. still from the outside, to put it bluntly, his stance looks like a rationalization to shirk an essential responsibility he has been uniquely entrusted with.
commandlinefan 3y ago
> maintain respect as a neutral party It seems like most of their headline-worthy actions have been reversing the times that the court did not act as a neutral party in the past.
rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> this Court is going to get one of the thicker chapters in the history books with all the precedents they have, or expected to, overturn This is false. The Roberts court has overruled previous decisions less often than previous courts, not more often. It will have one of the thinnest chapters in the history books, not one of the thickest. The Burger court overruled more decisions from 1969 to 1975 than the Roberts court has since it began in 2005. The Warren court has the thickest chapter in the history books. It overruled decisions at a higher rate than even the Burger court. I am guessing that the real difference is that you agree with the major decisions of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, and disagree with the major decisions of the Roberts court.
- lovich 3y ago
  Nah, went through what 18 years of relatively little rocking the boat in overturning precedence and then overturning roe v wade and now the chevron defense in 2-3 years? Maybe the courts history as a whole has less overturning but these past few years have been markedly faster
  - rufus_foreman 3y ago
    >> and then overturning roe v wade Sure, that helps make my point, thanks. Planned Parenthood v. Casey overturned parts of Roe v. Wade. That was in 1992 under the Rehnquist court. If overturning precedence is bad, the Rehnquist court is bad for overturning parts of Roe v. Wade.
    - lovich 3y ago
      > Sure, that helps make my point, thanks. Don’t believe it did. Feel free to explain. You know I’m referring to Dobbs and the implied chevron defense overturning in a short period after that political makeup of the court fundamentally changed.

pyuser583 3y ago

I’ve seen liberal arguments for and against Chevron and conservative arguments for and against Chevron. This doesn’t seem to be a simple conservative/liberal thing.

eschaton 3y ago
But the specific reasoning of the arguments in the suit, and the arguments in the decision and dissent, will very much be of a liberal or conservative bent.
jawns 3y ago
I agree with you, which is why it's interesting to see the court divided based on its typical conservative/liberal line. To me, it's fundamentally about the separation of powers. Why, in this case, should the executive branch be given the power to interpret ambiguous laws, when that duty normally falls to the judicial branch? The response seems to be that the executive branch has some special expertise that makes them better suited. But courts routinely call in expert witnesses; as Justice Alito pointed out in the hearing, there are methods for resolving ambiguity when Chevron does not apply. So I could see a ruling that basically says, "Sure, we'll make use of the administration's expertise -- as testimony, not as a substitute for judges."
- tw04 3y ago
  >Why, in this case, should the executive branch be given the power to interpret ambiguous laws, when that duty normally falls to the judicial branch? Because the court isn't nimble enough to do otherwise - they can take decades to even accept a case that may have real-world ramifications while they (sometimes intentionally) defer to even hear the case. Regardless of the theoretical discussion of who should own the decision, the reality of this decision will be corporations pillaging public goods (land/air/water) further than they already have because there will be no ability for the EPA and others to even have oversight of what they're doing. "But the law" won't really matter when your only option for drinking water is to go buy it from the store. We've seen: Corporations won't police themselves, even when it means doing otherwise kills people because it turns out the government never seems to penalize harshly enough to make that a profit-losing situation. Congress is perfectly happy ignoring issues unless it's politically inconvenient, even if they would all agree in private that the issue should probably be fixed. Heck often times they'll take a position they don't even believe just to be a contrarian.

remarkEon 3y ago

>The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement federal laws. I'm pretty skeptical that this is true. Who is training them? Training them in what? Reading laws and navigating bureaucracy? More ... >Kagan cited as one example a hypothetical bill to regulate artificial intelligence. Congress, she said, “knows there are going to be gaps because Congress can hardly see a week in the future.” So it would want people “who actually know about AI and are accountable to the political process to make decisions” about artificial intelligence. Courts, she emphasized, “don’t even know what the questions are about AI,” much less the answers. I'm not following why Kagan thinks this hypothetical helps her point. People who know about AI and are accountable to the political process are not bureaucrats in the federal agencies just as much as they are not the courts. I'll wait for the audio/transcript to come out because hopefully this is a misrepresentation of her question.

pama 3y ago
The government hires experts. See the example discussion in the post about regulating AI. Or think about the FDA, in the case of drugs, or the CIA for intelligence, the NSA for security (the A in the last two stands for Agency, which were so far covered by Chevron.)
- remarkEon 3y ago
  Sure, no one denies that the government hires experts. The people who have a problem with Chevron deference would question if those "experts" have the ability to make rules outside of what congress actually set out to regulate. The question in these cases is if those experts can interpret the ambiguity in a statute to make rules that may or may not have actually been the intent of congress. Personally, I think the answer should be "no".
  - nielsbot 3y ago
    How do you know the intent of congress? Are you going to ask them about every ambiguity in a law? Why shouldn't experts in the relevant areas make their best determination? Do you have examples you're concerned about where Chevron doctrine is a problem? Seems strange for these fisherman to sue for relief and suddenly agencies no longer have the ability to interpret the laws that apply to them.

rayiner 3y ago

Chevron was controversial at the time it was introduced as well. The notion that courts weren’t the ultimate arbiters of what legal rules actually mean, but that judges have to defer to the legal interpretations of an executive branch agency, was not uncontroversial. It wasn’t entirely novel—some idea that agencies should get some sort of deference has been percolating around since basically the advent of the administrative state. And frankly, getting rid of Chevron won’t really end the debate either. Ultimately, there’s two different strands to the issue. On one hand, it makes no sense to say that administrative agencies (who aren’t even necessarily staffed by lawyers) should get deference on interpretative questions regarding things like agency jurisdiction. Chevron says agencies get deference in determining their own jurisdiction and that’s batty. On the other hand, there’s an attractive principle in there that where Congress makes these highly technical statutes making trade offs about particular matter controls the agency should have discretion in figuring out how to implement those directives.

RecycledEle 3y ago

The easy way our for a lazy congressman is to copy-and-paste the current regulations into a bill (all of them,) sponsor it, and get it passed by the end of the week. Then submit another bill that makes it the duty of the commissioner of the blah-blah agency to submit a bill to congress every year that fixes whatever problems (s)he thinks need fixing. Give them a budget for a couple of lawyers to do the drafting and suggest they have an internal email address for employees to suggest changes to the lawyers. When the proposed bill is submitted by the commissioner, it goes onto the public record and the public has 180 days to comment. After that, whatever party is in power will take the parts they like, combine it with verbage from the lobbyists who pay for their vacations, and sponsor that bill. Yes, this introduces more delays into The System. I wish we (in the USA) would pass a constitutional amendment saying all laws must be published with markup for the dates changes take effect, so we can see what changes are coming soon. I also wish all new laws had to be published at least 1 year before they can take effect.