3 ms·

No, that isn’t the case. It is saying that regulatory agencies cannot exceed their authority and act like the judicial branch. In other words, it was the execut

No, that isn’t the case. It is saying that regulatory agencies cannot exceed their authority and act like the judicial branch. In other words, it was the executive branch that had taken more power previously.

HelloMcFly 2y ago
> In other words, it was the executive branch that had taken more power previously. If I may disagree: it was the legislature that gave the executive branch power, and the judicial branch that essentially approved such an arrangement (unanimously) in the original Chevron ruling.
- tivert 2y ago
  > If I may disagree: it was the legislature that gave the executive branch power, and the judicial branch that essentially approved such an arrangement (unanimously) in the original Chevron ruling. But the only way to properly do that is a constitutional amendment. To give an extreme though-experiment example: Lets say Congress 1) packed the Supreme Court with yes-men, 2) passed law giving themselves a huge pay raise and delegating all legislative powers to the President, while they go party. Didn't it just create a a king/dictator? Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
  - HelloMcFly 2y ago
    > But the only way to properly do that is a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment make it permanent, but Congress never actually lost control. They always had the power - and still do - amend, restrain, clarify their own laws. > Didn't it just create a a king/dictator? Wouldn't that be unconstitutional? In a scenario with a packed Supreme Court of "yes men" there are no bounds to what could happen, so why bother with the thought experiment? In your example, the constitution is already worthless.
rswail 2y ago
Not "taken". It was inherently granted by Congress on the joint understanding that the intent was that agencies would engage in rule making to decide areas left undefined within the scope of the law as written. Regulatory agencies are responsible to Congress, the Legislative Branch that has the power to adjust the law to reflect its intent. Judges are not. The understanding is that it is the agencies that are intended to have the best understanding of what they regulate, not judges. Laws were written with this assumption in place, which the Court has just rug-pulled from the operation of the US government.
tzs 2y ago
No it isn't. What Chevron said was that when the legislative branch gives an agency power to do X and there is some disagreement between the agency and someone else over precisely what X means and the agency's interpretation is reasonable the courts should use the agency's interpretation.
throw0101c 2y ago
> It is saying that regulatory agencies cannot exceed their authority and act like the judicial branch. On any given matter there are, at first, no laws on a given subject. Before airplanes were invented there were no rules or regulations for airplanes (FAA); similarly, pre-radio, nothing about how to use EM fields (FCC). Now, The (US) People gave The Congress authority to make laws on any subject (limited only by the Constitution). Congress said we will make laws limited actions on Topic X, and when non-prohibited actions are done they must be done in certain ways as prescribed by regulations. Congress further said that they cannot, ahead of time, know every situation that might arise on Topic X, but further rules may be needed. So Congress delegated further rule making, beyond the 'base' An Act to Regulate Topic X, to an agency that Congress itself created and funded via the above Act. An agency only exists because it was created by Congress; it only runs because it is funded by Congress. Congress says, in particular Acts, that some agency should look after the details of Topic X so Congress does not have it. Regulatory agencies have (limited) authority because it was given to them by The People (through their elected representatives).
- parhamn 2y ago
  > So Congress delegated further rule making Couldnt they just do this formally? Afaict scotus didnt rule it's unconstitutional for congress to explicitly defer, but the derefence, which originated in court precedent, isn't good. Theres nothing stoping congress from explictly defering either via act or in the act. Right?
  - bombcar 2y ago
    Read the judgement, it's pretty simple. All this says is that if Congress defers something to a branch, and there is ambiguity, and it comes in front of a judge, the judge does NOT have to accept the branch's interpretation of the ambiguity, and can instead judge it as judges do. Chevron said that if the branch had a reasonable interpretation (e.g, not batshit insane like saying "no arsenic in water" means "at least ten pounds per gallon of arsenic in water") then the judge should defer to it. Now the judge can but does not have to defer to it - if he pushes back, Congress can clarify the law. This has been done many times in the IRS, where people find a "loophole", the IRS tries to patch it themselves, the courts say, yeah, nah, and then Congress amends the law to remove it.

HelloMcFly 2y ago

> In other words, it was the executive branch that had taken more power previously. If I may disagree: it was the legislature that gave the executive branch power, and the judicial branch that essentially approved such an arrangement (unanimously) in the original Chevron ruling.

tivert 2y ago
> If I may disagree: it was the legislature that gave the executive branch power, and the judicial branch that essentially approved such an arrangement (unanimously) in the original Chevron ruling. But the only way to properly do that is a constitutional amendment. To give an extreme though-experiment example: Lets say Congress 1) packed the Supreme Court with yes-men, 2) passed law giving themselves a huge pay raise and delegating all legislative powers to the President, while they go party. Didn't it just create a a king/dictator? Wouldn't that be unconstitutional?
- HelloMcFly 2y ago
  > But the only way to properly do that is a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment make it permanent, but Congress never actually lost control. They always had the power - and still do - amend, restrain, clarify their own laws. > Didn't it just create a a king/dictator? Wouldn't that be unconstitutional? In a scenario with a packed Supreme Court of "yes men" there are no bounds to what could happen, so why bother with the thought experiment? In your example, the constitution is already worthless.

rswail 2y ago

Not "taken". It was inherently granted by Congress on the joint understanding that the intent was that agencies would engage in rule making to decide areas left undefined within the scope of the law as written. Regulatory agencies are responsible to Congress, the Legislative Branch that has the power to adjust the law to reflect its intent. Judges are not. The understanding is that it is the agencies that are intended to have the best understanding of what they regulate, not judges. Laws were written with this assumption in place, which the Court has just rug-pulled from the operation of the US government.

tzs 2y ago

No it isn't. What Chevron said was that when the legislative branch gives an agency power to do X and there is some disagreement between the agency and someone else over precisely what X means and the agency's interpretation is reasonable the courts should use the agency's interpretation.

throw0101c 2y ago

> It is saying that regulatory agencies cannot exceed their authority and act like the judicial branch. On any given matter there are, at first, no laws on a given subject. Before airplanes were invented there were no rules or regulations for airplanes (FAA); similarly, pre-radio, nothing about how to use EM fields (FCC). Now, The (US) People gave The Congress authority to make laws on any subject (limited only by the Constitution). Congress said we will make laws limited actions on Topic X, and when non-prohibited actions are done they must be done in certain ways as prescribed by regulations. Congress further said that they cannot, ahead of time, know every situation that might arise on Topic X, but further rules may be needed. So Congress delegated further rule making, beyond the 'base' An Act to Regulate Topic X, to an agency that Congress itself created and funded via the above Act. An agency only exists because it was created by Congress; it only runs because it is funded by Congress. Congress says, in particular Acts, that some agency should look after the details of Topic X so Congress does not have it. Regulatory agencies have (limited) authority because it was given to them by The People (through their elected representatives).

parhamn 2y ago
> So Congress delegated further rule making Couldnt they just do this formally? Afaict scotus didnt rule it's unconstitutional for congress to explicitly defer, but the derefence, which originated in court precedent, isn't good. Theres nothing stoping congress from explictly defering either via act or in the act. Right?
- bombcar 2y ago
  Read the judgement, it's pretty simple. All this says is that if Congress defers something to a branch, and there is ambiguity, and it comes in front of a judge, the judge does NOT have to accept the branch's interpretation of the ambiguity, and can instead judge it as judges do. Chevron said that if the branch had a reasonable interpretation (e.g, not batshit insane like saying "no arsenic in water" means "at least ten pounds per gallon of arsenic in water") then the judge should defer to it. Now the judge can but does not have to defer to it - if he pushes back, Congress can clarify the law. This has been done many times in the IRS, where people find a "loophole", the IRS tries to patch it themselves, the courts say, yeah, nah, and then Congress amends the law to remove it.