4 ms·

Time for Congress to start aggressively using its express constitutional power (under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause of Article III) to circumscribe fede

Time for Congress to start aggressively using its express constitutional power (under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause of Article III) to circumscribe federal courts' power to set aside congressional directives such as the ones that led to Chevron deference. "Separation of powers" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; it's a bootstrapped creature of power-seeking judges.

tmountain 2y ago
They can barely agree to increase the debt ceiling.
- lovethevoid 2y ago
  That’s actually one both parties agree vehemently on, it just depends on who can get what they want most out of the approval. It’s a negotiation tactic effectively, and no president wants to be behind the failure to do so, which leads to the opposing party having the upper hand to negotiate substantial wins in the process.
rayiner 2y ago
> "Separation of powers" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; it's a bootstrapped creature of power-seeking judges. Article I, Section 1 says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article II, Section 1 says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article III, Section 1 says: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Three specifically named powers, which are specifically assigned to three separate bodies, at the beginning of three separate sections. Gee, I wonder what the framers could possibly have been going with all this? I wish they had written papers elaborating on this concept that’s clearly reflected in the text: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10s14.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10s14... It’s hard to imagine anything that is more part of the constitution than separation of powers. If you handed the constitution and a copy of the federalist papers to an alien who knew nothing else about our society, they would understand that the constitution requires separation of powers.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  The idea of Congress delegating certain powers dates back to 1825, with further precedents from the 1920s and 1930s (and more recent): * https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html It's not a new idea that some ambiguities are left to the Executive to figure out. The Chevron decision was basically a codification of what had been done for decades before it.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The early precedents were things like delegating to the customs department lists of items for tariff schedules. Virtually all the precedent reallocating the power to make law was upheld under the threat of court packing in the 1930s and is suspect and ripe for revisiting.
    - throw0101c 2y ago
      From the original, unanimous, Chevron ruling: > When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. In such a case, federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones: "Our Constitution vests such responsibilities in the political branches." * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura.... That was in 1984: long past alleged, so-called "the threat of court packing" period.
- dctoedt 2y ago
  Yes, and what exactly is "the judicial Power"? Roberts, C.J., famously said that it was that of an umpire calling balls and strikes. As a far-fetched analogy, Chevron deference is a bit like having a committee of uninvolved players and managers determining where the strike zone will be for each ballpark. If the team owners agree on such a meta-rule, then the umpires need to call balls and strikes based on that meta-rule, using the strike zones determined by the committee. It's not up to the umpires to decide that the owners can't delegate that authority to the committee.
ldf80g804 2y ago
[dead]
megaman821 2y ago
If Congress had their shit together enough to reign in the federal courts, there wouldn't be so many federal laws that were ambiguous in the first place. Not sure what the shockwaves of this Chevron decision will be, but I am a fan of forcing the legislative branch to legislate again.
- relaxing 2y ago
  This will do nothing to force them to legislate. Zero regulation is what they want. Removal of regulation while they sit back and reap the cash rewards is precisely the designed outcome.
- trealira 2y ago
  This isn't going to make Congress write more legislation. No politician that was extremist is going to start compromising and proposing legislation. This simply shifts power from the executive branch to the judicial branch. It just makes the question of which party appoints federal judges even more important in the outcome of senate/presidential elections.
- k33n 2y ago
  How do you suggest that Congress "rein in" a coequal branch of government?
  - megaman821 2y ago
    They could expand the courts, institute justice term limits, or in this specific case, pass a law that says ambiguous terms in a law are to be interpreted by the Executive branch. If they are lazy, they could probably just stick in a clause that says the specific rules for this section will be created by the EPA or whatever relevant agency; and that would also comply with the ruling.

tmountain 2y ago

They can barely agree to increase the debt ceiling.

lovethevoid 2y ago
That’s actually one both parties agree vehemently on, it just depends on who can get what they want most out of the approval. It’s a negotiation tactic effectively, and no president wants to be behind the failure to do so, which leads to the opposing party having the upper hand to negotiate substantial wins in the process.

rayiner 2y ago

> "Separation of powers" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution; it's a bootstrapped creature of power-seeking judges. Article I, Section 1 says: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article II, Section 1 says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article III, Section 1 says: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Three specifically named powers, which are specifically assigned to three separate bodies, at the beginning of three separate sections. Gee, I wonder what the framers could possibly have been going with all this? I wish they had written papers elaborating on this concept that’s clearly reflected in the text: https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10s14.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch10s14... It’s hard to imagine anything that is more part of the constitution than separation of powers. If you handed the constitution and a copy of the federalist papers to an alien who knew nothing else about our society, they would understand that the constitution requires separation of powers.

throw0101c 2y ago
The idea of Congress delegating certain powers dates back to 1825, with further precedents from the 1920s and 1930s (and more recent): * https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html It's not a new idea that some ambiguities are left to the Executive to figure out. The Chevron decision was basically a codification of what had been done for decades before it.
- rayiner 2y ago
  The early precedents were things like delegating to the customs department lists of items for tariff schedules. Virtually all the precedent reallocating the power to make law was upheld under the threat of court packing in the 1930s and is suspect and ripe for revisiting.
  - throw0101c 2y ago
    From the original, unanimous, Chevron ruling: > When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. In such a case, federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones: "Our Constitution vests such responsibilities in the political branches." * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura.... That was in 1984: long past alleged, so-called "the threat of court packing" period.
dctoedt 2y ago
Yes, and what exactly is "the judicial Power"? Roberts, C.J., famously said that it was that of an umpire calling balls and strikes. As a far-fetched analogy, Chevron deference is a bit like having a committee of uninvolved players and managers determining where the strike zone will be for each ballpark. If the team owners agree on such a meta-rule, then the umpires need to call balls and strikes based on that meta-rule, using the strike zones determined by the committee. It's not up to the umpires to decide that the owners can't delegate that authority to the committee.

ldf80g804 2y ago

[dead]

megaman821 2y ago

If Congress had their shit together enough to reign in the federal courts, there wouldn't be so many federal laws that were ambiguous in the first place. Not sure what the shockwaves of this Chevron decision will be, but I am a fan of forcing the legislative branch to legislate again.

relaxing 2y ago
This will do nothing to force them to legislate. Zero regulation is what they want. Removal of regulation while they sit back and reap the cash rewards is precisely the designed outcome.
trealira 2y ago
This isn't going to make Congress write more legislation. No politician that was extremist is going to start compromising and proposing legislation. This simply shifts power from the executive branch to the judicial branch. It just makes the question of which party appoints federal judges even more important in the outcome of senate/presidential elections.
k33n 2y ago
How do you suggest that Congress "rein in" a coequal branch of government?
- megaman821 2y ago
  They could expand the courts, institute justice term limits, or in this specific case, pass a law that says ambiguous terms in a law are to be interpreted by the Executive branch. If they are lazy, they could probably just stick in a clause that says the specific rules for this section will be created by the EPA or whatever relevant agency; and that would also comply with the ruling.