12 ms·

The constitution mandates that the courts interpret the law. Thomas and Gorsuch are right in their concurrences, allowing the executive branch to both enforce a

The constitution mandates that the courts interpret the law. Thomas and Gorsuch are right in their concurrences, allowing the executive branch to both enforce and interpret law is abhorrent to our constitution's proscribed separation of powers.

cthalupa 2y ago
Except Chevron was just codification of the status quo that had existed since the founding of the country. Congress cannot be expected to craft every bit of law and regulation down to the finest detail, and the gridlock that has been congress over the past several decades should make it clear that it's practically impossible. The regulatory power of federal agencies has never been broad and without oversight from other branches - they operate on the authority given to them by Congress. The executive branch has not just been creating agencies wholesale and giving them sweeping regulatory powers, congress has passed laws creating them and delegating authority to them. As others have mentioned, you can look at the joke that is the patent system and the absurd games played around the law there to get an idea of what we're in for with this decision. I don't understand how anyone can think that's the place we want to get to for everything else.
- klyrs 2y ago
  The Federalist Society and its adherents see an ineffective Congress, and a general inability to enforce regulations, as a goal.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    No, we believe we should follow what the Constitution says even if it’s convenient. There’s virtually nothing that unites Federalist Society members (many of whom are Biden voters) apart from an engineers’ commitment to technical accuracy over practical effects.
    - beefok 2y ago
      > There’s virtually nothing that unites Federalist Society members (many of whom are Biden voters) apart from an engineers’ commitment to technical accuracy over practical effects. In what fantasy universe do Federalist Society members vote for Biden? They have been backing conservative and libertarians for generations. Their members are part of the Supreme Court and clearly do not want a democracy anymore. They are the antithesis of liberal political positions. I call utter bullshit. How do their views even remotely line up with Biden voters?
      - rayiner 2y ago
        There’s tons of Biden voters in federalist society because it’s not like Trump is much of a rule follower. And Biden himself for most of his career was a conservative Democrat. But I’m flummoxed by something. What does “democracy” mean to liberals? You’re the ones who want courts to decide issues that most other advanced democracies leave to voters, right? You believe in unelected bureaucrats and experts governing the country instead of elected officials. You seem to be using “democracy” in a very odd way to refer to rule by educated elites.
        mcmcmc 2y ago
        And of course a Congress bought and paid for by lobbyists will actually represent voters, right? The US is a broken country in decline and actively working towards its own destruction
        relaxing 2y ago
        We elect the executive to set the policy for and run the executive branch. An EPA employee doesn’t “rule” any more than a congressional staffer or court clerk.
        TylerE 2y ago
        [flagged]
        rayiner 2y ago
  - rustcleaner 2y ago
    My voting pattern is to ensure minimum cohesion between parties in the State. When all parties agree, watch out they're a-comin'!
- bombcar 2y ago
  The whole point of the judgement is that the status quo continues. Congress passes laws, the agencies implement them, if you disagree you go to court. All it's saying is that you don't have to go to the Supremes to get your disagreement to win. Imagine a patent system where the judge could never throw out a patent, because the experts at the agency (patent office) had granted it, so it must be valid.
  - cthalupa 2y ago
    This effectively neuters the ability for federal agencies to create regulations within the specific areas that Congress has tasked them with regulating. This is a significant blow to both legislative and executive branches, and further entrenches the power in the judiciary. In both reality and your supposed system, someone could always go to appointed officials and get their patent enforced - just look at how the Eastern District of Texas operated for decades. In reality, we see far more frequent turnover and shifting of opinion in federal agencies than we do in the judiciary. Just look at how often Net Neutrality has flopped back and forth at the FCC. (Constant reversal of regulatory decisions is also an issue, but it goes to show that the idea that a patent system that exists outside of judiciary control wouldn't have plenty of opportunity to make your case to sympathetic ears is silly)
    - dantheman 2y ago
      The agencies can draft any ruels they'd like and put them before congress. Perhaps we can have less rules...
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      This does not neuter federal agencies. They can still make rules, and they still have deference on fact questions. The only difference is that on questions of law, they no longer have deference.
  - EricDeb 2y ago
    philosophically I see what you're saying, but will congress be good at passing small laws to amend the ever changing regulatory landscape? I'm going to guess no. So practically this could be a nightmare
- Gormo 2y ago
  > Except Chevron was just codification of the status quo that had existed since the founding of the country. The concept of administrative law did not even exist at the founding of the country -- executive-branch agencies making rules directly applicable to the public wasn't really a thing until about the turn of the 20th century.
throw0101c 2y ago
> The constitution mandates that the courts interpret the law. The idea of Congress delegating certain powers dates back to 1825: * https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html Further precedents from the 1920s and 1930s (and more recent) are listed in the above link. It's not a new idea that some ambiguities are left to the Executive to figure out.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  Congress can still delegate certain powers even after this.
  - vkou 2y ago
    And every time they will, the courts will find that the delegation is not specific enough. Never mind that congress appoints the heads of the agencies, writes the laws directing them, and on an annual basis, renews funding for them.
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      Maybe, but since this ruling just happened today I think we will have to wait and see what happens.
      - vkou 2y ago
        > I think we will have to wait and see what happens. What will happen is that anytime someone doesn't like a regulation, they'll now have many, many jurisdictions in which to shop for a judge that will rule in their favor.
    - surfaceofthesun 2y ago
      Adding on to this: In addition to funding renewals, congress can make specific tweaks at any time to correct anything they dislike with regard to the executive branch. The ruling pretends like this avenue hasn’t existed and been used the entire time.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

cthalupa 2y ago

Except Chevron was just codification of the status quo that had existed since the founding of the country. Congress cannot be expected to craft every bit of law and regulation down to the finest detail, and the gridlock that has been congress over the past several decades should make it clear that it's practically impossible. The regulatory power of federal agencies has never been broad and without oversight from other branches - they operate on the authority given to them by Congress. The executive branch has not just been creating agencies wholesale and giving them sweeping regulatory powers, congress has passed laws creating them and delegating authority to them. As others have mentioned, you can look at the joke that is the patent system and the absurd games played around the law there to get an idea of what we're in for with this decision. I don't understand how anyone can think that's the place we want to get to for everything else.

klyrs 2y ago
The Federalist Society and its adherents see an ineffective Congress, and a general inability to enforce regulations, as a goal.
- rayiner 2y ago
  No, we believe we should follow what the Constitution says even if it’s convenient. There’s virtually nothing that unites Federalist Society members (many of whom are Biden voters) apart from an engineers’ commitment to technical accuracy over practical effects.
  - beefok 2y ago
    > There’s virtually nothing that unites Federalist Society members (many of whom are Biden voters) apart from an engineers’ commitment to technical accuracy over practical effects. In what fantasy universe do Federalist Society members vote for Biden? They have been backing conservative and libertarians for generations. Their members are part of the Supreme Court and clearly do not want a democracy anymore. They are the antithesis of liberal political positions. I call utter bullshit. How do their views even remotely line up with Biden voters?
    - rayiner 2y ago
      There’s tons of Biden voters in federalist society because it’s not like Trump is much of a rule follower. And Biden himself for most of his career was a conservative Democrat. But I’m flummoxed by something. What does “democracy” mean to liberals? You’re the ones who want courts to decide issues that most other advanced democracies leave to voters, right? You believe in unelected bureaucrats and experts governing the country instead of elected officials. You seem to be using “democracy” in a very odd way to refer to rule by educated elites.
      - mcmcmc 2y ago
        And of course a Congress bought and paid for by lobbyists will actually represent voters, right? The US is a broken country in decline and actively working towards its own destruction
      - relaxing 2y ago
        We elect the executive to set the policy for and run the executive branch. An EPA employee doesn’t “rule” any more than a congressional staffer or court clerk.
      - TylerE 2y ago
        [flagged]
        rayiner 2y ago
- rustcleaner 2y ago
  My voting pattern is to ensure minimum cohesion between parties in the State. When all parties agree, watch out they're a-comin'!
bombcar 2y ago
The whole point of the judgement is that the status quo continues. Congress passes laws, the agencies implement them, if you disagree you go to court. All it's saying is that you don't have to go to the Supremes to get your disagreement to win. Imagine a patent system where the judge could never throw out a patent, because the experts at the agency (patent office) had granted it, so it must be valid.
- cthalupa 2y ago
  This effectively neuters the ability for federal agencies to create regulations within the specific areas that Congress has tasked them with regulating. This is a significant blow to both legislative and executive branches, and further entrenches the power in the judiciary. In both reality and your supposed system, someone could always go to appointed officials and get their patent enforced - just look at how the Eastern District of Texas operated for decades. In reality, we see far more frequent turnover and shifting of opinion in federal agencies than we do in the judiciary. Just look at how often Net Neutrality has flopped back and forth at the FCC. (Constant reversal of regulatory decisions is also an issue, but it goes to show that the idea that a patent system that exists outside of judiciary control wouldn't have plenty of opportunity to make your case to sympathetic ears is silly)
  - dantheman 2y ago
    The agencies can draft any ruels they'd like and put them before congress. Perhaps we can have less rules...
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    This does not neuter federal agencies. They can still make rules, and they still have deference on fact questions. The only difference is that on questions of law, they no longer have deference.
- EricDeb 2y ago
  philosophically I see what you're saying, but will congress be good at passing small laws to amend the ever changing regulatory landscape? I'm going to guess no. So practically this could be a nightmare
Gormo 2y ago
> Except Chevron was just codification of the status quo that had existed since the founding of the country. The concept of administrative law did not even exist at the founding of the country -- executive-branch agencies making rules directly applicable to the public wasn't really a thing until about the turn of the 20th century.

throw0101c 2y ago

> The constitution mandates that the courts interpret the law. The idea of Congress delegating certain powers dates back to 1825: * https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html Further precedents from the 1920s and 1930s (and more recent) are listed in the above link. It's not a new idea that some ambiguities are left to the Executive to figure out.

ImJamal 2y ago
Congress can still delegate certain powers even after this.
- vkou 2y ago
  And every time they will, the courts will find that the delegation is not specific enough. Never mind that congress appoints the heads of the agencies, writes the laws directing them, and on an annual basis, renews funding for them.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    Maybe, but since this ruling just happened today I think we will have to wait and see what happens.
    - vkou 2y ago
      > I think we will have to wait and see what happens. What will happen is that anytime someone doesn't like a regulation, they'll now have many, many jurisdictions in which to shop for a judge that will rule in their favor.
  - surfaceofthesun 2y ago
    Adding on to this: In addition to funding renewals, congress can make specific tweaks at any time to correct anything they dislike with regard to the executive branch. The ruling pretends like this avenue hasn’t existed and been used the entire time.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]