3 ms·
Here's the problem: While many wish to live in some fantasy world (hello Libertarians) in our current system, getting rid of the Chevron doctrine will effectiv
by nielsbot 3y ago
Here's the problem:
While many wish to live in some fantasy world (hello Libertarians) in our current system, getting rid of the Chevron doctrine will effectively lead to greatly increased deregulation of industry, which will have many serious undesirable side effects, and which will mainly benefit industry and the wealthy and the expense of ordinary citizens.
It's also impractical. Agencies need the ability to move quickly to deal with new threats and technologies without waiting for a paralyzed congress to pass laws to deal with new or even existing problems. (I assume Congress would speak w experts anyway).
That said, of course, in an ideal world, experts would be heeded and cynical politics would not play a part in science-based policy decisions (e.g. how much PFA to allow in drinking water). But that's not the world we live in. We need regulation and experts and we need to improve on the system we have, but not eliminate the Chevron doctrine.
Chevron is reasonable--even obvious.
- torstenvl 3y agoThis viewpoint is utterly divorced from reality. I recommend you go read Chevron. The case itself was a massive win for deregulation under Reagan, and overturned a D.C. Circuit opinion by Ruth Bader Ginsburg that invalidated an EPA rule loosening environmental protections just because there was a new administration.
- nielsbot 3y agoWhat I keep reading is this will lead to greater deregulation overall in practice. Example: https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/20/24044179/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine-deference https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/20/24044179/supreme-court-ch...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nielsbot 3y agoAnother take: https://www.thenation.com/article/society/we-are-witnessing-the-biggest-judicial-power-grab-since-1803/ https://www.thenation.com/article/society/we-are-witnessing-...
- remarkEon 3y agoThis take is completely wrong. Every quote of the SCOTUS justices is done to make a particular point. I would recommend that you go read Chevron, the amicus briefs, the oral argument, and then do the same for the current cases (there are two) for this round.
- torstenvl 3y agoIt's interesting to me that you find partisan political op-eds by non-attorneys persuasive on a highly technical legal subject. Not the choice I would have made.
- lurking15 3y ago> without waiting for a paralyzed congress to pass laws to deal with new or even existing problems ah yes so all the technocrat experts who are undoubtably part of the revolving door between industry & government should just be policing themselves justified by "emergency" exigencies why are people so keen to defend regulatory capture as not only inevitable but seemingly good?
- nielsbot 3y agowhile there is always a risk of regulatory capture—which i abhor, the current imperfect system is better than no system. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/we-are-witnessing-the-biggest-judicial-power-grab-since-1803/ https://www.thenation.com/article/society/we-are-witnessing-...
- lurking15 3y agoElie Mystal is hardly a reasonable voice, far too politically extremist. My point is precisely that a regulatory-captured system is far worse than no govt regulatory system (which does not preclude non-govt systems).