4 ms·

> The existing system of administrative rules absolutely sucks for stability. This new system is even worse. At some point, the Judiciary will make a poor rul

> The existing system of administrative rules absolutely sucks for stability. This new system is even worse. At some point, the Judiciary will make a poor ruling. Perhaps this ruling is impossible to hold to, but maybe the executive branch decides to usurp the court of its own volition. Then what? The checks and balances system of our government only works when everyone plays nice. But if push comes to shove, then the executive branch is the one that holds all the power. They don't have to obey the legislator nor the judiciary -- neither has any real capability to enforce their will. The country has been slow rolling into single pillar government structure for decades now. IMHO, this ruling is a huge step towards solidifying the executive branch as the de facto sole branch of government. Government agencies were provided a mechanism for all three branches of government to work together, legislators provided scope and leadership, the judiciary provided checks, and the executive provided the operations. Once the agencies are all gutted, a future administration is going get an opportunity to act on their own via executive authority and they will ignore any attempts by the court to stop them, because the court is literally powerless in all but word. And that's what opens the door to a president who begins seizing assets of political opponents. Lots of authoritarian countries masquerade as democracies because legislators and judiciaries are inherently powerless to stop executives. I know plenty of people will counter with the old way was supporting an authoritarian executive. But to them, I'll point out that the agency system has ~100 years of efficacy behind it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
datavirtue 2y ago
Too much importance and deferral has been granted to the courts. It was a mistake to imbue that institution as the "third branch of government." I came to view that take as propaganda when I was younger and have soured increasingly more on the SCOTUS over these last few decades. I view that court as very dangerous and in need of being smacked down a peg or two. Congress has ultimate authority, period. So the SCOTUS running amok is a very bad look and smell.
- briandear 2y ago
  Congress does have the authority. And it shouldn’t be delegated to executive branch federal agencies. That’s the point of Chevron.
  - adastra22 2y ago
    I think you mean that’s the point of overturning Chevron.
adastra22 2y ago
> I'll point out that the agency system has ~100 years of efficacy behind it. The agency system you are advocating for has only a few decades of history. Chevron was a 1984 decision, and didn’t really rise to prominence until the Obama administration.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  The 1984 decision was a case contesting the agency system's authority. The result of that case confirmed the status quo, which existed long before 1984. 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.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act
  - adastra22 2y ago
    Up until the ACA, political platforms were accomplished by passing legislation. There was always ambiguity in that legislation to be resolved by courts, and nothing in today’s decision changes that. But prior to Obama’s administration, it was really rare the agencies would enforce policies with no basis in the law whatsoever. That’s what Chevron deference is about. There is no law on the books that gives the FTC authorization to ban non-competes. They just argued that it kinda-sorta fell within the scope of their expertise and did it. That is by and large how the government has been run for the last decade and a half. It is not how the government has run for most of the last 100 years as you claim. Most of that time period the agencies stuck to the letter of the law, only deviating in rare circumstances.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > There is no law on the books that gives the FTC authorization to ban non-competes. Sure there is; it's the Federal Trade Commission Act, which says "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful." They, through the regulatory process, correctly determined that non-competes are unfair methods of competition. > But prior to Obama’s administration, it was really rare the agencies would enforce policies with no basis in the law whatsoever. Obama's administration changed the makeup of the court with his loss of Scalia's seat, failure to pressure RBG to resign, and Trump's subsequent picks; that's what changed. The regulatory setup long predates his presidency. Chevron fell because the court got extra conservative members, nothing more.
stale2002 2y ago
> towards solidifying the executive branch The ruling is literally the opposite. The power is put in the hands of the courts and it is take away from the executive appointed agencies.
- cocacola1 2y ago
  Their point is that the "power" of the court is words and respect for its rulings. If the executive branch defies the court, the court can't actually do anything about it.
aksss 2y ago
Nothing in this decision prevents regulatory agency rulemaking. Nothing in this decision "guts" the agencies.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

datavirtue 2y ago

Too much importance and deferral has been granted to the courts. It was a mistake to imbue that institution as the "third branch of government." I came to view that take as propaganda when I was younger and have soured increasingly more on the SCOTUS over these last few decades. I view that court as very dangerous and in need of being smacked down a peg or two. Congress has ultimate authority, period. So the SCOTUS running amok is a very bad look and smell.

briandear 2y ago
Congress does have the authority. And it shouldn’t be delegated to executive branch federal agencies. That’s the point of Chevron.
- adastra22 2y ago
  I think you mean that’s the point of overturning Chevron.

adastra22 2y ago

> I'll point out that the agency system has ~100 years of efficacy behind it. The agency system you are advocating for has only a few decades of history. Chevron was a 1984 decision, and didn’t really rise to prominence until the Obama administration.

ceejayoz 2y ago
The 1984 decision was a case contesting the agency system's authority. The result of that case confirmed the status quo, which existed long before 1984. 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.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act
- adastra22 2y ago
  Up until the ACA, political platforms were accomplished by passing legislation. There was always ambiguity in that legislation to be resolved by courts, and nothing in today’s decision changes that. But prior to Obama’s administration, it was really rare the agencies would enforce policies with no basis in the law whatsoever. That’s what Chevron deference is about. There is no law on the books that gives the FTC authorization to ban non-competes. They just argued that it kinda-sorta fell within the scope of their expertise and did it. That is by and large how the government has been run for the last decade and a half. It is not how the government has run for most of the last 100 years as you claim. Most of that time period the agencies stuck to the letter of the law, only deviating in rare circumstances.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > There is no law on the books that gives the FTC authorization to ban non-competes. Sure there is; it's the Federal Trade Commission Act, which says "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful." They, through the regulatory process, correctly determined that non-competes are unfair methods of competition. > But prior to Obama’s administration, it was really rare the agencies would enforce policies with no basis in the law whatsoever. Obama's administration changed the makeup of the court with his loss of Scalia's seat, failure to pressure RBG to resign, and Trump's subsequent picks; that's what changed. The regulatory setup long predates his presidency. Chevron fell because the court got extra conservative members, nothing more.

stale2002 2y ago

> towards solidifying the executive branch The ruling is literally the opposite. The power is put in the hands of the courts and it is take away from the executive appointed agencies.

cocacola1 2y ago
Their point is that the "power" of the court is words and respect for its rulings. If the executive branch defies the court, the court can't actually do anything about it.

aksss 2y ago

Nothing in this decision prevents regulatory agency rulemaking. Nothing in this decision "guts" the agencies.