4 ms·

Before proclaiming that this outcome is horrible - Please consider that the Good Guys (your opinion) might not win the election in November. And that you might

Before proclaiming that this outcome is horrible - Please consider that the Good Guys (your opinion) might not win the election in November. And that you might not want the courts auto-deferring to all the plausible-ish interpretations of ambiguous laws which gov't agency officials appointed by the Bad Guys (your opinion) might suddenly add the Official Agency Interpretations next year.

aklemm 2y ago
From either side, relying on the judiciary over active, well-functioning legislature is bad.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  True. And having Santa Claus make all the decisions would be even better. Unfortunately, neither Santa Claus nor an active and well-functioning legislature seem to be available.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Some would also argue that the judiciary is not particularly well-functioning, so why are we acting like that's the best option in the absence of alternatives?
- AmericanChopper 2y ago
  It’s not bad to have due process. If some unelected regulator decides to invent a new interpretation for a law, and this causes some form of damages to you, then the courts are absolutely the appropriate venue to seek your remedy. That’s what due process is. This just puts judicial oversight back into a process where it had (for rather poor reasons imo) previously been removed.
w4 2y ago
Exactly this. Unchecked administrative power in the Executive has left very dangerous tools laying about for would be autocrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory This will certainly make life harder for the regulatory agencies, and I don’t want to minimize the difficulty that represents, but this decision reinstates an important check on the Executive’s power at a very critical juncture in our nation’s history.
kergonath 2y ago
That is not a question of good guys and bad guys. It’s just that a system where the legislative branch micro-manages things like electrical safety in new homes to what you’re allowed to put in baby formula is completely unworkable. If “the bad guys” get into power, then the agency is still checked by the courts that are perfectly able to stop blatant overreach. OTOH, congress physically cannot keep abreast of the state of the art in all of medicine to have an informed opinion on whether to ban or control a specific compound that turned out to be carcinogenic, to give but one example.
- bell-cot 2y ago
  Currently, in the minds of much of the American electorate, it is good guys and bad guys. You are correct that the US Constitution is poorly suited to governing a nation of ~1/3 billion people in the modern world. Unfortunately, the current political environment make fixing things impossible.
  - free_bip 2y ago
    > You are correct that the US Constitution is poorly suited to governing a nation of ~1/3 billion people in the modern world. Which is exactly why this is such a terrible decision.
  - catlikesshrimp 2y ago
    What political environment makes fixing things possible? Countries scraping their constitutions tend to be poor ones just finishing revolutions which more often that not creates dictators (1799 France included). Except, very few exceptions
    - bell-cot 2y ago
      I was going to cite France as an exception, 'till you mentioned it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republics Admittedly, far more an exception than an ideal to emulate. The other "typical case" is countries liberated from military occupation...
throwup238 2y ago
The Chevron deference case is one of the most cited court cases in the US and this decision threatens to throw Federal regulations into chaos as a bunch of Districts redecide decades of precedent. Since the appeals courts can reach contradictory decisions and keep them in play until the Supreme Court makes a conclusive decision, any company at the national level will have to figure out how to square that circle. Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, this is going to cause a practical mess just like the Dobbs decision, except Chevron deference impacts every area of federal regulation.
- Auracle 2y ago
  Sometimes you need to refactor the code, even when it’s going to be a huge mess to do so.
  - CobrastanJorji 2y ago
    Yes, sometimes you just need to refactor the code in prod by surprise via force pushing and telling everybody else to start fixing their failing integration tests.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    The courts are incapable of refactoring by design. They can only decide the cases litigated before them, they can't take a holistic view of the legislation and put forward coherent reforms. In my career I have never seen messy refactorings go well. They are carefully planned and executed piece of by piece instead of throwing everything out of the window.
  - mywittyname 2y ago
    This is more like deleting the backups then shutting off the A/C in the server room. It's not going to be feasible to run the country this way. So something has to give, either the agencies tell SCOTUS to fuck off, agencies stop operating, or they file suit for every little thing and clog up the already overworked justice system (which I guess means that we end up with behind closed doors mediation). Since the President is the boss of agency heads, I guess it's up to the President to decide their favored course of action.
yongjik 2y ago
Err, we've seen what happened when the Bad Guys (TM) won the election. They pack the Supreme Court with their friendly Bad Guys (TM) so that the Court can make decisions in their favor. (If you object, feel free to switch Good/Bad guys, and it will be still true.) So "Please consider that supreme courts may also limit the power of the Bad Guys" is clearly false, because when the Team X has power, they will make sure Team X is in every branch of the government, and their justices will decide whatever the executive branch is doing is very kosher and constitutional, as long as it's their team. In the end, the system can only hold as long as even "Bad Guys" are good enough that they're not willing to break the system from inside. You keep electing the Real Bad Guys, the system will fail. Checks and balances aren't magic.
- stvswn 2y ago
  Simply because you're not a fan of the outcomes doesn't mean that the appointments of justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were illegitimate. Chevron deference started under the Stevens court and the deference it entailed related to the Reagan administration. That this has become a conservative hobby horse since then has nothing to do with policy preferences that only cut one way in a partisan way, and has everything to do with a deeper disagreement over the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary. Chevron deference isn't "the system" it's simply one precedent that has been faltering for years. There's no reason for any "side" to see this as the sky falling unless you really, really want to preserve some federal regulation that is TOO IMPORTANT to allow statutes to clarify.
  - r2_pilot 2y ago
    >Simply because you're not a fan of the outcomes doesn't mean that the appointments of justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were illegitimate. I agree; just because I don't like their made-up and pre-determined justifications doesn't make their appointments illegitimate; that would be Mitch McConnell's blatant disregard for the timely execution of his responsibilities basically without recent precedent and certainly inconsistent between the times he did actually fulfill his duties.
  - cthalupa 2y ago
croes 2y ago
The agency personal can be changed if the Good Guys win again. That's not true for judges, so any damage by the Bad Guys lasts longer.
pavon 2y ago
While that is a very important thing to consider when evaluating any law or judicial ruling in general, I don't think it shifts my view much in this case. Foremost, this decision makes it easier to overturn regulations while making it harder to create them. This strictly moves the balance of power to the right regardless of who controls the presidency or congress at any moment. Secondly, it moves power out of the executive and to the judicial, which currently leans right, and will likely continue to for decades. Lastly, there were always limits as too how far of an interpretation they could push because it still has to be reasonable, and still has to follow many other rule-making processes we have. The left got lucky in that the Trump administration was particularly incompetent at following either of those, which we can't always depend on, but even without that it provided some bumpers.
CuriouslyC 2y ago
The court is partisan as all hell. If the side that wants to poison water and air to save money for industry wins, the court is going to high five it and laugh.
fireflash38 2y ago
You mean that thing that a certain political party had taken great pains to stack with partisans judges will now get to decide even more?
Gormo 2y ago
> Please consider that the Good Guys (your opinion) might not win the election in November. How could they possibly win? They aren't even on the ballot!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

aklemm 2y ago

From either side, relying on the judiciary over active, well-functioning legislature is bad.

bell-cot 2y ago
True. And having Santa Claus make all the decisions would be even better. Unfortunately, neither Santa Claus nor an active and well-functioning legislature seem to be available.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Some would also argue that the judiciary is not particularly well-functioning, so why are we acting like that's the best option in the absence of alternatives?
AmericanChopper 2y ago
It’s not bad to have due process. If some unelected regulator decides to invent a new interpretation for a law, and this causes some form of damages to you, then the courts are absolutely the appropriate venue to seek your remedy. That’s what due process is. This just puts judicial oversight back into a process where it had (for rather poor reasons imo) previously been removed.

w4 2y ago

Exactly this. Unchecked administrative power in the Executive has left very dangerous tools laying about for would be autocrats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory This will certainly make life harder for the regulatory agencies, and I don’t want to minimize the difficulty that represents, but this decision reinstates an important check on the Executive’s power at a very critical juncture in our nation’s history.

kergonath 2y ago

That is not a question of good guys and bad guys. It’s just that a system where the legislative branch micro-manages things like electrical safety in new homes to what you’re allowed to put in baby formula is completely unworkable. If “the bad guys” get into power, then the agency is still checked by the courts that are perfectly able to stop blatant overreach. OTOH, congress physically cannot keep abreast of the state of the art in all of medicine to have an informed opinion on whether to ban or control a specific compound that turned out to be carcinogenic, to give but one example.

bell-cot 2y ago
Currently, in the minds of much of the American electorate, it is good guys and bad guys. You are correct that the US Constitution is poorly suited to governing a nation of ~1/3 billion people in the modern world. Unfortunately, the current political environment make fixing things impossible.
- free_bip 2y ago
  > You are correct that the US Constitution is poorly suited to governing a nation of ~1/3 billion people in the modern world. Which is exactly why this is such a terrible decision.
- catlikesshrimp 2y ago
  What political environment makes fixing things possible? Countries scraping their constitutions tend to be poor ones just finishing revolutions which more often that not creates dictators (1799 France included). Except, very few exceptions
  - bell-cot 2y ago
    I was going to cite France as an exception, 'till you mentioned it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republics Admittedly, far more an exception than an ideal to emulate. The other "typical case" is countries liberated from military occupation...

throwup238 2y ago

The Chevron deference case is one of the most cited court cases in the US and this decision threatens to throw Federal regulations into chaos as a bunch of Districts redecide decades of precedent. Since the appeals courts can reach contradictory decisions and keep them in play until the Supreme Court makes a conclusive decision, any company at the national level will have to figure out how to square that circle. Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, this is going to cause a practical mess just like the Dobbs decision, except Chevron deference impacts every area of federal regulation.

Auracle 2y ago
Sometimes you need to refactor the code, even when it’s going to be a huge mess to do so.
- CobrastanJorji 2y ago
  Yes, sometimes you just need to refactor the code in prod by surprise via force pushing and telling everybody else to start fixing their failing integration tests.
- throwup238 2y ago
  The courts are incapable of refactoring by design. They can only decide the cases litigated before them, they can't take a holistic view of the legislation and put forward coherent reforms. In my career I have never seen messy refactorings go well. They are carefully planned and executed piece of by piece instead of throwing everything out of the window.
- mywittyname 2y ago
  This is more like deleting the backups then shutting off the A/C in the server room. It's not going to be feasible to run the country this way. So something has to give, either the agencies tell SCOTUS to fuck off, agencies stop operating, or they file suit for every little thing and clog up the already overworked justice system (which I guess means that we end up with behind closed doors mediation). Since the President is the boss of agency heads, I guess it's up to the President to decide their favored course of action.

yongjik 2y ago

Err, we've seen what happened when the Bad Guys (TM) won the election. They pack the Supreme Court with their friendly Bad Guys (TM) so that the Court can make decisions in their favor. (If you object, feel free to switch Good/Bad guys, and it will be still true.) So "Please consider that supreme courts may also limit the power of the Bad Guys" is clearly false, because when the Team X has power, they will make sure Team X is in every branch of the government, and their justices will decide whatever the executive branch is doing is very kosher and constitutional, as long as it's their team. In the end, the system can only hold as long as even "Bad Guys" are good enough that they're not willing to break the system from inside. You keep electing the Real Bad Guys, the system will fail. Checks and balances aren't magic.

stvswn 2y ago
Simply because you're not a fan of the outcomes doesn't mean that the appointments of justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were illegitimate. Chevron deference started under the Stevens court and the deference it entailed related to the Reagan administration. That this has become a conservative hobby horse since then has nothing to do with policy preferences that only cut one way in a partisan way, and has everything to do with a deeper disagreement over the separation of powers and the role of the judiciary. Chevron deference isn't "the system" it's simply one precedent that has been faltering for years. There's no reason for any "side" to see this as the sky falling unless you really, really want to preserve some federal regulation that is TOO IMPORTANT to allow statutes to clarify.
- r2_pilot 2y ago
  >Simply because you're not a fan of the outcomes doesn't mean that the appointments of justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were illegitimate. I agree; just because I don't like their made-up and pre-determined justifications doesn't make their appointments illegitimate; that would be Mitch McConnell's blatant disregard for the timely execution of his responsibilities basically without recent precedent and certainly inconsistent between the times he did actually fulfill his duties.
- cthalupa 2y ago

croes 2y ago

The agency personal can be changed if the Good Guys win again. That's not true for judges, so any damage by the Bad Guys lasts longer.

pavon 2y ago

While that is a very important thing to consider when evaluating any law or judicial ruling in general, I don't think it shifts my view much in this case. Foremost, this decision makes it easier to overturn regulations while making it harder to create them. This strictly moves the balance of power to the right regardless of who controls the presidency or congress at any moment. Secondly, it moves power out of the executive and to the judicial, which currently leans right, and will likely continue to for decades. Lastly, there were always limits as too how far of an interpretation they could push because it still has to be reasonable, and still has to follow many other rule-making processes we have. The left got lucky in that the Trump administration was particularly incompetent at following either of those, which we can't always depend on, but even without that it provided some bumpers.

CuriouslyC 2y ago

The court is partisan as all hell. If the side that wants to poison water and air to save money for industry wins, the court is going to high five it and laugh.

fireflash38 2y ago

You mean that thing that a certain political party had taken great pains to stack with partisans judges will now get to decide even more?

Gormo 2y ago

> Please consider that the Good Guys (your opinion) might not win the election in November. How could they possibly win? They aren't even on the ballot!

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]