5 ms·

I liked this section of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence: > How bad is the problem? Take just one example. Brand X concerned a law regulating broadband internet s

I liked this section of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence: > How bad is the problem? Take just one example. Brand X concerned a law regulating broadband internet services. There, the Court upheld an agency rule adopted by the administration of President George W. Bush because it was premised on a “reasonable” interpretation of the statute. Later, President Barack Obama’s administration rescinded the rule and replaced it with another. Later still, during President Donald J. Trump’s administration, officials replaced that rule with a different one, all before President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.’s administration declared its intention to reverse course for yet a fourth time. Each time, the government claimed its new rule was just as “reasonable” as the last. Rather than promoting reliance by fixing the meaning of the law, Chevron deference engenders constant uncertainty and convulsive change even when the statute at issue itself remains unchanged.

fzeroracer 2y ago
But fundamentally, how is this different than what the Supreme Court does? The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and its meaning as it relates to whether or not a law is constitutional. The overturning of Roe v Wade is the direct result of the current court saying 'actually, the way we previously interpreted the constitution was wrong'. We've gone through significant uncertainty and convulsive change as a result of the Supreme Court throwing out decades of precedence. This isn't to say this is always a bad thing, but the reasons for their past few decisions do not pass muster.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  It's not. I think this actually flips a lot of power back to the judicial branch in the short term, which is significant because federal judges enjoy lifetime appointments. Of course, Congress has the power to look at unexpected or perverse-seeming judicial outcomes and legislate accordingly, but the legislative process is typically slow and subject to various sorts of bargaining; a rather corruptible process.
- tpmoney 2y ago
  >But fundamentally, how is this different than what the Supreme Court does? The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and its meaning as it relates to whether or not a law is constitutional. The overturning of Roe v Wade is the direct result of the current court saying 'actually, the way we previously interpreted the constitution was wrong'. That's sort of the point, because congress has abdicated their responsibility for so long, many of the "laws" and "rights" that exist in our legal framework are mere shadows of actual legislation. They're executive whims or judicial policies, both of which are inherently fragile and subject to sudden change. Roe v. Wade was the "law of the land" only to the extent that the courts continued to interpret an ambiguity in the law the same way as they always had. Congress had decades to shore up a case that even the jurist who were part of it said was extremely weak. Everyone knew it was fragile and the DNC cashed in on that fragility every election. Or consider medical marijuana, which is currently only un-prosecuted at the federal level because the president told the DEA to chill out for a bit. The fact that in November the next president could change their mind and conduct federal raids of dispensaries across the country is not a good thing. You might argue that they couldn't do that because the medical marijuana industries and laws are crafted to avoid crossing state lines, but that depends on A) ignoring decades of Wickard (which admittedly the current SCOTUS might be willing to do, but boy if you think this decision or Roe was controversial, that would be a doozy) and B) ignore the very obvious fact that some of that legal supply is leaking across state lines illegally. The fact that Net Neutrality is on again/off-again is another example of this. Major legal decisions are being left to the whims of two octogenarians who it's a miracle manage to get through the day without shitting their pants, and a judicial system that is inconsistent at the best of times. The courts have always been political, but if they are uniquely so at this time, it's because the folks interested in politics have figured out its easier to get what they want via executive fiat and judicial wrangling, and congress has learned their jobs and income are more secure when they don't have to take the blame for those things.
kelnos 2y ago
I agree with Gorsuch's overall point, but he's also writing it knowing full well that today's Congress is not equipped to do all that rulemaking, and not equipped to agree on and pass the huge volume of legislation that would be necessary to duplicate all that rulemaking within the legislative branch. And he's ok with this, because his political ideology is such that fewer regulations and less rulemaking is a good thing. Ultimately Congress cannot take on all of the executive branch's current rulemaking authority without some huge changes to how the body works. Those changes will not happen, because conservatives don't want these rules.
- yaksha 2y ago
  Are those rules necessary? Do those rules have to be implemented at the federal level? Can the states take responsibility for some of the items instead?
  - trzy 2y ago
    Not possible. The US is on the fast track to be humbled and humiliated by its geopolitical rival, China.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Reversing Chevron doesn't mean that Congress has to do all the work. It means that the courts will interpret what the statutory language allows when the agencies do their rulemaking. It's really that simple, and it's not a big deal.
wwweston 2y ago
If his complaint is the back-and-forth, this is certainly a look-in-the-mirror moment for Gorsuch and the present court, who've sure made their own notable contributions to whipsaw governance dynamics lately. If his complaint is that there's an executive discretion in executing the law or the expectation should be that congressional force only goes as far as its ability to write micromanagement into statute then it's hard to restrain from making "do you even constitution bro" or "who are you and why are you wearing that robe" remarks. (Of course, in representative government, not only elections but agency and judicial appointments have consequences, so while it it may be inconsistent for justices to exercise that privilege for themselves while arguing away the right of another branch to do the same, it is not that big of a surprise, and it is entirely consistent with a philosophy based in elitist privilege for some that is likely behind much of today's ruling among others.)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kolbe 2y ago
  This is so incredibly ignorant, which is fine. We're on a startup forum after all--not a conlaw round table. We aren't supposed to be experts. But to think you have some superior intellectual standing on this issue compared to any of the SCOTUS justices to too much Dunning-Kruger for me to just let slide.
  - underlipton 2y ago
    The most recent two have no business being on the bench in the first place, so maybe not so much.
    - kolbe 2y ago
      ACB and Jackson? I am about as well-versed in the law as any non-lawyer, and I have 10% at best of the legal knowledge of either of them. The hubris on legal matters of some of the people here is laughable. It's the equivalent of some random law student criticizing John Carmack.

fzeroracer 2y ago

But fundamentally, how is this different than what the Supreme Court does? The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and its meaning as it relates to whether or not a law is constitutional. The overturning of Roe v Wade is the direct result of the current court saying 'actually, the way we previously interpreted the constitution was wrong'. We've gone through significant uncertainty and convulsive change as a result of the Supreme Court throwing out decades of precedence. This isn't to say this is always a bad thing, but the reasons for their past few decisions do not pass muster.

anigbrowl 2y ago
It's not. I think this actually flips a lot of power back to the judicial branch in the short term, which is significant because federal judges enjoy lifetime appointments. Of course, Congress has the power to look at unexpected or perverse-seeming judicial outcomes and legislate accordingly, but the legislative process is typically slow and subject to various sorts of bargaining; a rather corruptible process.
tpmoney 2y ago
>But fundamentally, how is this different than what the Supreme Court does? The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and its meaning as it relates to whether or not a law is constitutional. The overturning of Roe v Wade is the direct result of the current court saying 'actually, the way we previously interpreted the constitution was wrong'. That's sort of the point, because congress has abdicated their responsibility for so long, many of the "laws" and "rights" that exist in our legal framework are mere shadows of actual legislation. They're executive whims or judicial policies, both of which are inherently fragile and subject to sudden change. Roe v. Wade was the "law of the land" only to the extent that the courts continued to interpret an ambiguity in the law the same way as they always had. Congress had decades to shore up a case that even the jurist who were part of it said was extremely weak. Everyone knew it was fragile and the DNC cashed in on that fragility every election. Or consider medical marijuana, which is currently only un-prosecuted at the federal level because the president told the DEA to chill out for a bit. The fact that in November the next president could change their mind and conduct federal raids of dispensaries across the country is not a good thing. You might argue that they couldn't do that because the medical marijuana industries and laws are crafted to avoid crossing state lines, but that depends on A) ignoring decades of Wickard (which admittedly the current SCOTUS might be willing to do, but boy if you think this decision or Roe was controversial, that would be a doozy) and B) ignore the very obvious fact that some of that legal supply is leaking across state lines illegally. The fact that Net Neutrality is on again/off-again is another example of this. Major legal decisions are being left to the whims of two octogenarians who it's a miracle manage to get through the day without shitting their pants, and a judicial system that is inconsistent at the best of times. The courts have always been political, but if they are uniquely so at this time, it's because the folks interested in politics have figured out its easier to get what they want via executive fiat and judicial wrangling, and congress has learned their jobs and income are more secure when they don't have to take the blame for those things.

kelnos 2y ago

I agree with Gorsuch's overall point, but he's also writing it knowing full well that today's Congress is not equipped to do all that rulemaking, and not equipped to agree on and pass the huge volume of legislation that would be necessary to duplicate all that rulemaking within the legislative branch. And he's ok with this, because his political ideology is such that fewer regulations and less rulemaking is a good thing. Ultimately Congress cannot take on all of the executive branch's current rulemaking authority without some huge changes to how the body works. Those changes will not happen, because conservatives don't want these rules.

yaksha 2y ago
Are those rules necessary? Do those rules have to be implemented at the federal level? Can the states take responsibility for some of the items instead?
- trzy 2y ago
  Not possible. The US is on the fast track to be humbled and humiliated by its geopolitical rival, China.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
cryptonector 2y ago
Reversing Chevron doesn't mean that Congress has to do all the work. It means that the courts will interpret what the statutory language allows when the agencies do their rulemaking. It's really that simple, and it's not a big deal.

wwweston 2y ago

If his complaint is the back-and-forth, this is certainly a look-in-the-mirror moment for Gorsuch and the present court, who've sure made their own notable contributions to whipsaw governance dynamics lately. If his complaint is that there's an executive discretion in executing the law or the expectation should be that congressional force only goes as far as its ability to write micromanagement into statute then it's hard to restrain from making "do you even constitution bro" or "who are you and why are you wearing that robe" remarks. (Of course, in representative government, not only elections but agency and judicial appointments have consequences, so while it it may be inconsistent for justices to exercise that privilege for themselves while arguing away the right of another branch to do the same, it is not that big of a surprise, and it is entirely consistent with a philosophy based in elitist privilege for some that is likely behind much of today's ruling among others.)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kolbe 2y ago
This is so incredibly ignorant, which is fine. We're on a startup forum after all--not a conlaw round table. We aren't supposed to be experts. But to think you have some superior intellectual standing on this issue compared to any of the SCOTUS justices to too much Dunning-Kruger for me to just let slide.
- underlipton 2y ago
  The most recent two have no business being on the bench in the first place, so maybe not so much.
  - kolbe 2y ago
    ACB and Jackson? I am about as well-versed in the law as any non-lawyer, and I have 10% at best of the legal knowledge of either of them. The hubris on legal matters of some of the people here is laughable. It's the equivalent of some random law student criticizing John Carmack.