6 ms·

>The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement fed

>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.
    - elcritch 3y ago
      > Why shouldn't experts in the relevant areas make their best determination? Because experts are often myopic and terrible policy makers. Also experts hired by federal agencies will likely tend to favor interpretations that the agency prefers.
      - MasterYoda900 3y ago
        You sound like you have an axe to grind. Can you cite a past real-world example of what you’re saying?
        Clubber 3y ago
        Sure, the ATF allowed "pistol braces" over a decade then suddenly decided they were illegal. The ATF decided they would "reinterpret" very clear definition of what a machine gun was. A person has been put in prison for selling an uncut stencil of an automatic seer (basically a drawing on a metal credit card), which by definition isn't a machine-gun. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTIDz8jflZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTIDz8jflZE https://thedailyrecord.com/2023/08/21/atf-gun-rights-advocates-battle-over-whether-forced-reset-triggers-are-illegal-machine-guns/ https://thedailyrecord.com/2023/08/21/atf-gun-rights-advocat... The EPA has greatly expanded the definition of wetlands. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf And of course this example being discussed. There are probably many more we haven't heard about. You can agree or disagree with these policies, but they need to be voted on by congress. These agencies seem to be out of control and should be reigned in. Checks and balances are important.
        muaytimbo 3y ago
        The ATF examples are egregious, they issue letters of determination that pistol braces are permissible for a decade, then rescind and overnight make all buyers felons. But they are not the only agency that is evil, the CDC asserting the right over all housing in the US to prevent evictions was insane. The FDA not allowing terminal patients who have exhausted all other treatment options to try anything experimental. The list goes on.
- creer 3y ago
  And the government can present these experts in court, and have them go against the other side's experts. The experts are not going away whichever way is decided.
- canjobear 3y ago
  CIA and NSA, famous success stories of accountability to the political process.
HWR_14 3y ago
How are the president's nominated and senate confirmed agency heads not accountable to the political process?
- BillSaysThis 3y ago
  Cabinet members at least are, as they can be impeached. GOP House is "trying" to impeach the current Sec of Homeland Security.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    Cabinet members and some others can be fired by the president. Those that cannot be fired serve a fixed term when they are appointed by the President and they then have to be confirmed by the Senate.
silexia 3y ago
Government bureaucrats only hire other people who agree with them as that is in the interests of their job security. Shrinking the government is vital to allowing new ideas air to breathe.

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.
  - elcritch 3y ago
    > Why shouldn't experts in the relevant areas make their best determination? Because experts are often myopic and terrible policy makers. Also experts hired by federal agencies will likely tend to favor interpretations that the agency prefers.
    - MasterYoda900 3y ago
      You sound like you have an axe to grind. Can you cite a past real-world example of what you’re saying?
      - Clubber 3y ago
        Sure, the ATF allowed "pistol braces" over a decade then suddenly decided they were illegal. The ATF decided they would "reinterpret" very clear definition of what a machine gun was. A person has been put in prison for selling an uncut stencil of an automatic seer (basically a drawing on a metal credit card), which by definition isn't a machine-gun. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria-firearms-attached-stabilizing-braces https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTIDz8jflZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTIDz8jflZE https://thedailyrecord.com/2023/08/21/atf-gun-rights-advocates-battle-over-whether-forced-reset-triggers-are-illegal-machine-guns/ https://thedailyrecord.com/2023/08/21/atf-gun-rights-advocat... The EPA has greatly expanded the definition of wetlands. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf And of course this example being discussed. There are probably many more we haven't heard about. You can agree or disagree with these policies, but they need to be voted on by congress. These agencies seem to be out of control and should be reigned in. Checks and balances are important.
        muaytimbo 3y ago
        The ATF examples are egregious, they issue letters of determination that pistol braces are permissible for a decade, then rescind and overnight make all buyers felons. But they are not the only agency that is evil, the CDC asserting the right over all housing in the US to prevent evictions was insane. The FDA not allowing terminal patients who have exhausted all other treatment options to try anything experimental. The list goes on.
creer 3y ago
And the government can present these experts in court, and have them go against the other side's experts. The experts are not going away whichever way is decided.
canjobear 3y ago
CIA and NSA, famous success stories of accountability to the political process.

HWR_14 3y ago

How are the president's nominated and senate confirmed agency heads not accountable to the political process?

BillSaysThis 3y ago
Cabinet members at least are, as they can be impeached. GOP House is "trying" to impeach the current Sec of Homeland Security.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Cabinet members and some others can be fired by the president. Those that cannot be fired serve a fixed term when they are appointed by the President and they then have to be confirmed by the Senate.

silexia 3y ago

Government bureaucrats only hire other people who agree with them as that is in the interests of their job security. Shrinking the government is vital to allowing new ideas air to breathe.