4 ms·
The larger question about Chevron doctrine is really the issue. SCOTUS gutting Chevron will cripple the ability of the market to be regulated. You think compani
by seventytwo 3y ago
The larger question about Chevron doctrine is really the issue. SCOTUS gutting Chevron will cripple the ability of the market to be regulated. You think companies charging fees is bad now? Just wait… you think you’ve seen OSHA violations now? Just wait. You think companies don’t give a shit about pollution now? Just wait.
- ihsw 3y ago[dead]
- jimbob45 3y agoAgency heads appointed via cronyism is undemocratic. Better we move to a system where Congress has to pass laws rather than installing yes-men into these agencies to push through their own personal agenda with little to no pushback.
- jandrese 3y agoSaid as a person who clearly does not pay attention to Congress. Congressmen are in no way equipped to deal with minutia from agencies. They can barely pass a budget.
- triceratops 3y agoThink about how little your Congressperson knows about technology - a field you're presumably well-versed in. Then imagine if they brought that depth of knowledge to every single field they pass laws in. "Leave it to Congress" is tantamount to deregulating literally everything.
- jimbob45 3y agoThis is a false dilemma fallacy. The options are not "let Congress vote on everything forever only" and "unelected agency heads rule your life". There are shades of gray between those two extremes.
- saint_fiasco 3y agoIs the dilemma actually false, in actual practice? I understand there is an infinite number of possible policies, but in a representative democracy there are usually only a couple possible policies to choose from. What is the actual thing that will happen if the Supreme Court rules one way or another in the Chevron thing?
- alistairSH 3y agoWhat is the actual thing that will happen if the Supreme Court rules one way or another in the Chevron thing? Very roughly, the Chevron ruling ensures that federal courts give deference to executive agency policies when those policies are reasonably based on the law passed by Congress. Federal judges, lacking detailed knowledge of some specific set of regulation, cannot impose their judgement during a case - they must defer to the agency. Overturning Chevron could allow lower-level, unelected judges impose their personal views when hearing cases (vs deferring to the agency tasked with enforcing laws). The argument that an unelected bureaucracy is "making law" doesn't pass the sniff test - those agencies are reviewed by Congress and limited by law. Federal judges have no such oversight - our primary recourse when they go off the rails is impeachment. Super-simplified example... Boeing doesn't want the FAA to regulate airplane doors, so they sue on the grounds regulating doors isnt explicitly listed in law as a something the FAA can regulate. The judge hearing the case believes Boeing should be able to build doors however it wants and rules against the FAA (under Chevron, judge would be required to defer to FAA's industry knowledge). Impact: Boeing can now install doors with fewer bolts that required without risk of being grounded by the FAA.
- immibis 3y agoAnd the people opposing the Chevron doctrine are pushing for "let Congress vote on everything forever only". And the Chevron doctrine is not "unelected agency heads rule your life" - remember those agency heads can make rules because Congress said they could. By doing nothing, Congress implies approval. If Congress doesn't like what they're doing, Congress can easily pass a law overriding it or even abolishing the agency.
- alistairSH 3y agoSo, instead of FAA saying "the doors have to stay attached to the fuselage (and the planes are grounded until you prove that's the case)", you want Congress to explicitly spell out every detail about airline safety on the fly as problems occur? That's sure to work out fantastic.
- seventytwo 3y agoWhy doesn’t the company boardroom just make all the decisions for the company, down to the brand of bulk toilet paper that’s going to be used at the remote branch? Figure that out, and then you’ll figure out why Congress doesn’t just make all the decisions.
- cjensen 3y agoThis is the key point here. There are just too many things that genuinely do need regulation and Congress simply doesn't have the time or expertise to deal with everything. Losing Chevron would leave too many things unregulated, and would make it too easy to slip an industry-friendly regulation into a large regulation bill.