4 ms·
Nobody doubted this is where it would end up - but it's a terrible place at complete odds with judicial restraint and precedent. The courts are going to be the
by mikeyouse 2y ago
Nobody doubted this is where it would end up - but it's a terrible place at complete odds with judicial restraint and precedent. The courts are going to be the de facto regulatory body in the US going forward, a responsibility they granted themselves out of thin air.
- lolinder 2y ago> a terrible place at complete odds with judicial restraint On the contrary, they see themselves as them undoing many decades' worth of lack of judicial restraint. It's a change only because judicial activism has been the norm.
- arcticbull 2y agoThey can see themselves however they want, that doesn’t make it any less at odds with precedent.
- kasey_junk 2y agoIf nothing else it is further evidence that they themselves aren’t concerned with slow and moderate change. This court is only conservative in their political positions. In their actions they are extreme.
- lolinder 2y agoConservatives don't believe in slow change, they believe that the way things were is generally speaking the way that things should stay. Rapidly undoing changes that were accreted since the "set point" is the entirely rational response to those accreted changes if you have picked a set point where things were supposedly ideal.
- TylerE 2y agoNone of that is rational. We know the past sucked.
- kasey_junk 2y agoSure. But for a long time conservatives decried judicial activism. This court has made it obvious that for many what they really didn’t like was activism that went against their politics.
- lolinder 2y agoNo, the court has made it obvious how much they dislike judicial activism: so much so that they're willing to roll back decades of precedent and likely cause a lot of confusion for a very long time in order to undo most of the judicial activism from the past. I'm all for a healthy debate on whether this is good policy, but the caricatures of this Court that keep showing up on HN aren't helpful for anyone. They lead to severe misunderstandings and bad predictions of what the Court will do next.
- kasey_junk 2y agoWith this decision they’ve quite literally moved the courts more directly into the executive. It may not be the activism of prior courts but it’s not a move to limit judicial power.
- latency-guy2 2y agoCan you establish further what you mean? This is at odds to me considering who staffs the federal agencies and subsequently who gets the enforce the laws.
- hibikir 2y agoOnce precedent has already been set over and over again, changing said precedent is, in itself, activism. Same as with Bruen: One can dress it in restraint all they want, but it's a massive divergence in the interpretation of the law, in ways that don't even necessarily have serious textualist support.
- rayiner 2y agoI don’t understand this viewpoint. Remember, Chevron is only about who gets to make a final determination of what a Congressional statute means. How could it possibly be anybody else’s job other than the courts’ to make that decision? A far more accurate framing is that Chevron abdicated the courts’ duty to be the interpreter of statutes, which is one of the most fundamental aspects of being a court. This does not limit Congress’s ability to delegate discretion to agencies. It just has to do so explicitly.
- mikeyouse 2y agoI'd love to see where in the APA you feel that this is demanded and why during the interim 80 years of court decisions relying on the APA that no other court deemed it necessary.
- rayiner 2y agoThe APA can’t change the separation of powers between what’s the court’s job and what’s the executive’s job.
- goodluckchuck 2y agoCourts have made common law since before the Magna Carta. To say they’ve granted themselves that responsibility out of thin air grasps at the root of western civilization as we’ve known it.
- psunavy03 2y agoThey didn't grant it out of thin air. Go re-read Article III of the Constitution.