3 ms·
The Chevron scheme essentially leads a disfunctional Congress to abdicate all its regulatory power slowly but surely and to never claw it back. Why even have a
by cryptonector 3y ago
The Chevron scheme essentially leads a disfunctional Congress to abdicate all its regulatory power slowly but surely and to never claw it back. Why even have a Congress? Reversing Chevron might or might not help Congress get its pants back on, but it's worth a try, and I hope the SCOTUS does it. If it doesn't work, then we'll have to confront the possibility that the Founders' design no longer works and some serious reform is needed (though what that would be I've no idea).
- runako 3y agoCongress does not abdicate power at all. Congress is not prevented from regulating when it feels like doing so. Just because some people do not like the results of their delegation does not mean that Congress is similarly dissatisfied with those same results. Some parties want Congress to be dissatisfied and exercise its powers. Congress regulated a single app made by a single company this week; Congress can act when it wants to do so.
- cryptonector 3y agoI think it's pretty certain that under Chevron and w/o W. Virginia vs. EPA the EPA could ban ICEs tomorrow and the courts would allow it, and Congress would be unable to stop it, but that would be a very drastic thing to do and it should require debate, and we wouldn't get it. If you don't think that scenario is likely, there are others somewhat less extreme and more likely ones one could conjure up. I think that's abdication.
- runako 3y agoYou can't pitch a hypothetical and say that since Congress wouldn't act in your hypothetical that they have in the real world abdicated their responsibility. I can equally make a hypothetical that says the EPA won't ban ICEs, or a hypothetical that says that EPA bans ICEs and Congress passes a law 24 hours later undoing the ban.