6 ms·

> Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. > So agencies will not have any p

> Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. > So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This honestly sounds perfect. If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.

unethical_ban 2y ago
We disagree. I prefer an effective administration of government.
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  What's your definition of effective and how are you evaluating if the administrative government is meeting your definition?
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    I think a technocratic executive bureaucracy, created and overseen by the legislature, is better than demanding the legislature directly craft all regulations and have judges adjudicate every nuance.
    - Gormo 2y ago
      Why do you think that's better? Whose priorities and interests do we expect these 'technocratic executive bureaucracies' to pursue if allowed to be the arbiters of their own authority, and what mechanism would ensure they remain accountable to the public and operate within the applicable constraints of prevailing law and the constiution?
      - unethical_ban 2y ago
        Why do you think a crippled group of 500 generalists should write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life? Why do you think federal agencies are arbiters of their own authority? Congress created them, Congress can reel them in. I don't mean to say that executive agencies shouldn't be held to the Constitution or the law. Who says they shouldn't? But they should be allowed to have a broad mandate. Maybe, MAYBE some kind of rubber stamp process where legislators get a 90 day window on rejecting new regulations with a "default approve". But I have no faith that a modern society can have all rules and edge cases pre-emptively defined in law.
        Gormo 2y ago
        > Why do you think a crippled group of 500 generalists should write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life? They shouldn't. No single entity should ever be allowed to "to write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life". Thankfully, with this decision, we have restored a situation where law and policy are developed and refined through the interplay of disparate branches of government with ultimate accountability to the public itself, with edge cases handled by the specialists who actually have the relevant expertise in interpreting law. > I don't mean to say that executive agencies shouldn't be held to the Constitution or the law. Who says they shouldn't? Well, that's the implicit argument of the people who are saying they should continue to be allowed to act as the arbiters of their own authority, without judicial oversight. > But they should be allowed to have a broad mandate. Unelected appointees who are hired on the basis of their expertise in a technical field, without necessarily having any special competence at handling the normative aspect of their duties, should absolutely not have a broad mandate to decide what the limits of their own authority are.
        unethical_ban 2y ago
        >Well, that's the implicit argument of the people who are saying they should continue to be allowed to act as the arbiters of their own authority, without judicial oversight. No, that's no my implicit argument so you're wrong on the facts. And you keep saying they are the arbiters of their own authority. Congress is.
        Gormo 2y ago
        I'm afraid that it's you who are wrong on the facts: Congress does not exercise direct oversight over the behavior of these agencies. Congress passes statutes that establish and grant authority to administrative agencies, and may from time to time pass new legislation that adjusts prevailing law, but they do not intervene to exercise oversight under the current statutes in effect. That oversight -- evaluating the specific actions of those agencies and determining whether they are within the scope of current law -- has always been the role of other institutions. Conventionally (and constitutionally), responsibility for for that oversight -- i.e. determining the meaning of the applicable statutes, and deciding whether specific behaviors and actions are within the law -- belongs entirely to the courts. A few decades ago, the courts decided to abdicate this responsibility, and instead defer to those agencies' own interpretation of the statutes they operate under, indeed having the effect of making them "arbiters of their own authority". This is what Chevron doctrine refers to, and is what the new court decision has finally reversed.
- throwdown7653 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    We being myself and the person I disagree with.
  - uncletaco 2y ago
    I’m pretty sure they’re saying the other commenter and they themselves disagree.
CuriouslyC 2y ago
I hope you enjoy drinking your poison water and breathing your poison air as much as the companies that skirt environmental regulations enjoy their cost savings.
Dalewyn 2y ago
Agreed. If Congress or Executive agencies don't want the judiciary interpreting the laws in various ways they should write laws with no room for interpretation. The couts giving/forcing (back) power to the legislature where laws are supposed to be written, deliberated, and passed is a very good thing.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  Exactly how do you write a law that has no room for interpretation? What does that process look like exactly, and how do you achieve it at scale in a changing and dynamic world where the meanings of words change over time? I think what you’re saying is the equivalent of “just write software without bugs and everything will be fine” Yeah sure… but easier said than done.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Generally speaking, a specific law is always better than a vague law. It allows for more fairer enforcement and better understanding of the law concerned. If the words written on paper don't actually mean anything and can be interpreted wildly, what is even the point of passing laws? Writing and passing unnecessarily vague laws open to interpretation and saying your job is done is like Bethesda publishing a bug infested game and saying they have a finished product. No, your work is shit, go back to the workshop.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      Well I think there's quite a difference between what you originally said ("with no room for interpretation") and what you now say ("don't actually mean anything and can be interpreted wildly"). I think lawmakers strive to write laws that are precise enough that they can't be interpreted wildly, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect lawmakers to craft laws that have no room for interpretation.
  - klyrs 2y ago
    > Exactly how do you write a law that has no room for interpretation? Funny question in light of Fischer vs. US. The majority found that the text of a law didn't mean what they believed it should, so they threw out the text and went with their feelings. How can one write a law with no room for interpretation, to be understood by a court who can't be trusted to retain the letter of the law?
HumblyTossed 2y ago
> This honestly sounds perfect. > If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place. There's no way. But, I guess we'll find out. I hope HN is around in 10 years so we can see who is right.
throwdown7653 2y ago
[flagged]
- intended 2y ago
  I think describing a 2 line statement as civil discourse worth of engagement really puts some pressure on those 2 lines. Following it up with disagree with words, not downvotes adds to the weight of those lines. Given the effort ratio, I wouldnt condone downvotes, however I wouldnt be surprised if that was the easiest response. Also - Downvotes have existed since, at least, slashdot. They are not censorship. They can be misapplied, but it’s not censorship. This site is also actively moderated. It’s part of the censorship industrial complex as trust and safety is being called now.
- sqeaky 2y ago
  Downvoted. At best the person you referring to is ignorant how reality works. But they are also indistinguishable from someone who doesn't value words at all and is lying for political gain. Why should such be allowed? Edit - and remember you're not allowed to downvote me because I'm being perfectly civil. But the only way to stop me is to downvote me or get the mods to censor me.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
nielsbot 2y ago
Hate to break it to you, but your Libertarian fantasy will not work out the way you think it will. We are going to see more pollution, more child labor, more exploitation of poor immigrants and more hoarding of wealth by the few among other side effects. There's a reason only the "conservative" SCOTUS justices have billionaire "friends".

unethical_ban 2y ago

We disagree. I prefer an effective administration of government.

Mountain_Skies 2y ago
What's your definition of effective and how are you evaluating if the administrative government is meeting your definition?
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  I think a technocratic executive bureaucracy, created and overseen by the legislature, is better than demanding the legislature directly craft all regulations and have judges adjudicate every nuance.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    Why do you think that's better? Whose priorities and interests do we expect these 'technocratic executive bureaucracies' to pursue if allowed to be the arbiters of their own authority, and what mechanism would ensure they remain accountable to the public and operate within the applicable constraints of prevailing law and the constiution?
    - unethical_ban 2y ago
      Why do you think a crippled group of 500 generalists should write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life? Why do you think federal agencies are arbiters of their own authority? Congress created them, Congress can reel them in. I don't mean to say that executive agencies shouldn't be held to the Constitution or the law. Who says they shouldn't? But they should be allowed to have a broad mandate. Maybe, MAYBE some kind of rubber stamp process where legislators get a 90 day window on rejecting new regulations with a "default approve". But I have no faith that a modern society can have all rules and edge cases pre-emptively defined in law.
      - Gormo 2y ago
        > Why do you think a crippled group of 500 generalists should write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life? They shouldn't. No single entity should ever be allowed to "to write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life". Thankfully, with this decision, we have restored a situation where law and policy are developed and refined through the interplay of disparate branches of government with ultimate accountability to the public itself, with edge cases handled by the specialists who actually have the relevant expertise in interpreting law. > I don't mean to say that executive agencies shouldn't be held to the Constitution or the law. Who says they shouldn't? Well, that's the implicit argument of the people who are saying they should continue to be allowed to act as the arbiters of their own authority, without judicial oversight. > But they should be allowed to have a broad mandate. Unelected appointees who are hired on the basis of their expertise in a technical field, without necessarily having any special competence at handling the normative aspect of their duties, should absolutely not have a broad mandate to decide what the limits of their own authority are.
        unethical_ban 2y ago
        >Well, that's the implicit argument of the people who are saying they should continue to be allowed to act as the arbiters of their own authority, without judicial oversight. No, that's no my implicit argument so you're wrong on the facts. And you keep saying they are the arbiters of their own authority. Congress is.
        Gormo 2y ago
        I'm afraid that it's you who are wrong on the facts: Congress does not exercise direct oversight over the behavior of these agencies. Congress passes statutes that establish and grant authority to administrative agencies, and may from time to time pass new legislation that adjusts prevailing law, but they do not intervene to exercise oversight under the current statutes in effect. That oversight -- evaluating the specific actions of those agencies and determining whether they are within the scope of current law -- has always been the role of other institutions. Conventionally (and constitutionally), responsibility for for that oversight -- i.e. determining the meaning of the applicable statutes, and deciding whether specific behaviors and actions are within the law -- belongs entirely to the courts. A few decades ago, the courts decided to abdicate this responsibility, and instead defer to those agencies' own interpretation of the statutes they operate under, indeed having the effect of making them "arbiters of their own authority". This is what Chevron doctrine refers to, and is what the new court decision has finally reversed.
throwdown7653 2y ago
[flagged]
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  We being myself and the person I disagree with.
- uncletaco 2y ago
  I’m pretty sure they’re saying the other commenter and they themselves disagree.

CuriouslyC 2y ago

I hope you enjoy drinking your poison water and breathing your poison air as much as the companies that skirt environmental regulations enjoy their cost savings.

Dalewyn 2y ago

Agreed. If Congress or Executive agencies don't want the judiciary interpreting the laws in various ways they should write laws with no room for interpretation. The couts giving/forcing (back) power to the legislature where laws are supposed to be written, deliberated, and passed is a very good thing.

ModernMech 2y ago
Exactly how do you write a law that has no room for interpretation? What does that process look like exactly, and how do you achieve it at scale in a changing and dynamic world where the meanings of words change over time? I think what you’re saying is the equivalent of “just write software without bugs and everything will be fine” Yeah sure… but easier said than done.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Generally speaking, a specific law is always better than a vague law. It allows for more fairer enforcement and better understanding of the law concerned. If the words written on paper don't actually mean anything and can be interpreted wildly, what is even the point of passing laws? Writing and passing unnecessarily vague laws open to interpretation and saying your job is done is like Bethesda publishing a bug infested game and saying they have a finished product. No, your work is shit, go back to the workshop.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    Well I think there's quite a difference between what you originally said ("with no room for interpretation") and what you now say ("don't actually mean anything and can be interpreted wildly"). I think lawmakers strive to write laws that are precise enough that they can't be interpreted wildly, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect lawmakers to craft laws that have no room for interpretation.
- klyrs 2y ago
  > Exactly how do you write a law that has no room for interpretation? Funny question in light of Fischer vs. US. The majority found that the text of a law didn't mean what they believed it should, so they threw out the text and went with their feelings. How can one write a law with no room for interpretation, to be understood by a court who can't be trusted to retain the letter of the law?

HumblyTossed 2y ago

> This honestly sounds perfect. > If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place. There's no way. But, I guess we'll find out. I hope HN is around in 10 years so we can see who is right.

throwdown7653 2y ago

[flagged]

intended 2y ago
I think describing a 2 line statement as civil discourse worth of engagement really puts some pressure on those 2 lines. Following it up with disagree with words, not downvotes adds to the weight of those lines. Given the effort ratio, I wouldnt condone downvotes, however I wouldnt be surprised if that was the easiest response. Also - Downvotes have existed since, at least, slashdot. They are not censorship. They can be misapplied, but it’s not censorship. This site is also actively moderated. It’s part of the censorship industrial complex as trust and safety is being called now.
sqeaky 2y ago
Downvoted. At best the person you referring to is ignorant how reality works. But they are also indistinguishable from someone who doesn't value words at all and is lying for political gain. Why should such be allowed? Edit - and remember you're not allowed to downvote me because I'm being perfectly civil. But the only way to stop me is to downvote me or get the mods to censor me.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

nielsbot 2y ago

Hate to break it to you, but your Libertarian fantasy will not work out the way you think it will. We are going to see more pollution, more child labor, more exploitation of poor immigrants and more hoarding of wealth by the few among other side effects. There's a reason only the "conservative" SCOTUS justices have billionaire "friends".