5 ms·

> it's a reaction to Federal Agencies — unelected governmental representatives — unilaterally making their own rules out of the gray areas. Eliminating Chevron

• cryptonector 3y ago
  > Eliminating Chevron will trade "unelected governmental representatives" who work at e.g. the FTC with "unelected governmental representatives" who are paid by the US Court system. Progress? Where do you get that from? Reversing Chevron will mean that Congress will have to work harder to get the regulations that it and the Executive want. If Congress were not disfunctional that would be a very good thing. And heck, reversing Chevron might well function to help Congress function more normally.
  • runako 3y ago
    Congress won’t instantly have written laws to cover every regulation currently enforced by the federal government. Reasonably, it could take many years for those gaps to get filled. In the meanwhile, that means the courts are the key decision makers for large areas of government policy.
  • macintux 3y ago
    Republicans originally celebrated Chevron because it took regulations out of the courts' hands.
    • cryptonector 3y ago
      Did they? I wasn't there. But a reversal of Chevron doesn't necessarily mean that the courts get to do what they like. It may mean that the courts simply get to gut the bureaucratic state and kick the can to Congress -- that what's not forbidden by statute is allowed rather than that the courts act as regulators. There will be lower courts who will want to push their role as regulators, but the SCOTUS seems uninterested in playing that game given its "major questions" doctrine. It would be very strange for the court to create the major questions doctrine then impanel itself as the ultimate regulator.
      • macintux 3y ago
        Someone has to fill in the multitude of gaps that exist between a law and its enforcement. Chevron moved much of that decision-making authority out of the court system into the executive branch. Even a fully-functional representative body can't write laws that are explicit enough to cover every possibility. And the U.S. Congress is far from functional.
        • runako 3y ago
          This is a key point that gets overlooked so often. The Court accepts that governments outsource regulation to e.g. the private developers of building codes. Similarly, we don’t benefit from a Congress mired in details over the minutae managed by many areas of the federal government.
          • cryptonector 3y ago
            "Major questions" have to go to Congress. That seems like a good rule.
            • cogman10 3y ago
              It's not though. The only people that can apply it are the supreme court and the only time they'll apply it is when precedence and the letter of the law goes against their own political ideologies. In short, it's lazy judicial activism. It's anti-textualist, anti-originalist, anti-legal theory. It's a rule that the Supreme court has to invoke to achieve their objectives because they have no other avenue. The law was clear, the intent clear, and what congress desired was clear. Major questions should be solved by congress passing a revision to the law. The supreme court invoking it robs congress of their power because "we know better". The reason it's such a bad rule is no lower court or litigant can really invoke it. It is only something the supreme court can use because it's undefined what qualifies as a "major question". Boiled down, it's "we don't like the law congress passed but we can't come up with a constitutional, textual, or historic reason why that law or it's application is invalid". They would not use "major questions" if there were any other legal reasoning to go to.