3 ms·

Why did the Supreme Court invent Chevron deference 40 years ago? To serve corporations. It's not called "Chevron" because it's about inverted V's, after all. Th

Why did the Supreme Court invent Chevron deference 40 years ago? To serve corporations. It's not called "Chevron" because it's about inverted V's, after all. The EPA wanted to interpret the law in a way that Chevron liked and the Natural Resources Defense Council did not like, so the Supreme Court said "no, no, the EPA gets to decide, we are but poor unqualified judges." Why did the Supreme Court take it away? Because agencies started interpreting laws in ways that corporations did not like, so the Supreme Court changed its tune to "who are these agencies to interpret the law, we are the judges here."

RIMR 2y ago
This is pretty much direct irrefutable evidence that the SCOTUS has been corrupted. The extreme ideological tilt is disturbing enough, but it's clear that these judges answer to the highest bidder, not the American people or the intent of the Founding Fathers.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  If the spirit of the ruling originally by the SCOTUS was to benefit corporations , and they overturned it because it was no longer benefiting corporations - are they really corrupted? Or just business as usual?
- soerxpso 2y ago
  What? Some guy making a vague statement on a web forum with nothing concrete to back it is "direct, irrefutable evidence"? I'd like to see any evidence at all that any SCOTUS judge is actually profiting from this decision in any way. Chevron was corrupt 40 years ago; overturning it is not, or at least isn't more corrupt than the decision originally was in the first place.
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    Clarence Thomas? The huge amount of gifts he's taken from Republican donors who have ties to real estate companies and businesses that benefit the most from things like 'pesky environmental regulations' being weakened or removed?
lefstathiou 2y ago
Per the written opinion, Congress started purposely drafting vague laws with the intent of having them interpreted by unelected (politically appointed) officials in a manner that best suited their agenda. So it seems reasonable to me that once the circumstances change (or we have more data), so would the law. It was a nice experiment, I'm glad we tried it, now we know people are people, and thankfully it's mostly done.

RIMR 2y ago

This is pretty much direct irrefutable evidence that the SCOTUS has been corrupted. The extreme ideological tilt is disturbing enough, but it's clear that these judges answer to the highest bidder, not the American people or the intent of the Founding Fathers.

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
If the spirit of the ruling originally by the SCOTUS was to benefit corporations , and they overturned it because it was no longer benefiting corporations - are they really corrupted? Or just business as usual?
soerxpso 2y ago
What? Some guy making a vague statement on a web forum with nothing concrete to back it is "direct, irrefutable evidence"? I'd like to see any evidence at all that any SCOTUS judge is actually profiting from this decision in any way. Chevron was corrupt 40 years ago; overturning it is not, or at least isn't more corrupt than the decision originally was in the first place.
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  Clarence Thomas? The huge amount of gifts he's taken from Republican donors who have ties to real estate companies and businesses that benefit the most from things like 'pesky environmental regulations' being weakened or removed?

lefstathiou 2y ago

Per the written opinion, Congress started purposely drafting vague laws with the intent of having them interpreted by unelected (politically appointed) officials in a manner that best suited their agenda. So it seems reasonable to me that once the circumstances change (or we have more data), so would the law. It was a nice experiment, I'm glad we tried it, now we know people are people, and thankfully it's mostly done.