3 ms·

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 se

by 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.
- jawns 3y ago
  You've outlined the problems with entrusting the judicial branch and legislative branch handle these issues. But what about the problems with entrusting the executive branch, which can turn over every four years? We've had two very different presidents over the past 8 years. The agencies (such as the EPA) that you are entrusting to protect the things you value may actually be given very different directions, depending on who's in office.

by jawns 3y ago

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.

jawns 3y ago
You've outlined the problems with entrusting the judicial branch and legislative branch handle these issues. But what about the problems with entrusting the executive branch, which can turn over every four years? We've had two very different presidents over the past 8 years. The agencies (such as the EPA) that you are entrusting to protect the things you value may actually be given very different directions, depending on who's in office.