7 ms·
I think this misses an important distinction. The issue here isn't the extent to which Congress can delegate rule-making authority to executive agencies. Those
by wahern 2y ago
I think this misses an important distinction. The issue here isn't the extent to which Congress can delegate rule-making authority to executive agencies. Those bounds haven't been moved. The issue is how how much deference courts are to give agencies when deciding when an agency-made rule reasonably adheres to the purpose and function of a statute. In theory the degree of deference shouldn't matter--agencies' retain the same rule-making authority and flexibility as before--but as a matter of process it absolutely does.
SCOTUS invented the Chevron doctrine because it believed at the time courts were too quick to second-guess the logic behind agency rule making, and in doing so unnecessarily and improperly inserting themselves into technical debates as well as broader political debates. IOW, the court was primarily concerned with people using the courts to subvert executive prerogatives and electoral politics. The concern now, apparently, is that administrations are using agency flexibility to subvert electoral politics.
Then and now, by moving the threshold for when courts can second-guess federal agencies, it's effectively altering the rights and responsibilities between Congress and the President, as well as between those two institutions and the electorate more broadly.
- surfaceofthesun 2y agoIt seems that congress is much quicker and more willing to correct overreach by the executive branch through legislation compared to overreach by the judiciary — especially at the Supreme Court level.
- kergonath 2y agoLOL. Have you seen the state of congress in the last decade? A rotten dead fish would be quicker to correct about any overreach than the US congress.
- surfaceofthesun 2y agoYes. I simply meant a relative comparison between the two. Agreed otherwise
- autoexec 2y ago> The concern now, apparently, is that administrations are using agency flexibility to subvert electoral politics. That's very charitable. A less charitable view might be that their concern is that regulatory bodies and other executive agencies are standing in the way of personal and corporate profits, and that overturning Chevron means that the courts can now cripple the ability for federal agencies to function by overruling the reasonable interpretations of statute those agencies have been operating under all this time and instead limit them to only the most narrow interpretation of the law. Law that has, for decades now, been being written under the assumption that Chevron exists, and not with the expectation that an adversarial judge will try to undermine the intention of the laws being passed.
- kolbe 2y agoThat's very charitable. A less charitable view might be that corrupt, know-nothing political friends use their ability to "interpret a gap" to make sweeping legislation with no accountability and in-house courts to adjudicate on their behalf, then use selective enforcement for de facto bribery in a revolving door of public-private scheme to extort the productive sector of our country, and give to the useless rent seeking politicians and their cronies.
- ffgjgf1 2y agoWouldn’t a system where you need bribe a large number of bureaucrats (who might have differing opinions and priorities) still be more robust than one where you just need to bribe a couple of corrupt Supreme Court justices like now? > the useless rent seeking politicians and their cronies. Courts are largely politically appointed. Why are judges necessarily more trustworthy in your opinion?
- kolbe 2y agoI was just bootlicking the Fox news narrative as hard as you are bootlicking the NYT. It was parody. My real opinion is that no one is more trustworthy than the other. They're all people. But there are constitutionally delegated duties given to each branch that we've gradually eased over the past century, and between Jarkesy disallowing in-house courts for certain types of crime, the resurgence of the non-delegation doctrine and now the overruling of Chevron, SCOTUS thinks this delegation is not optional. I personally agree with them hesitantly, but predicting the future is hard, and there are some actions they take where I think the consequences are obvious, but this is not one of them, and I would have slept no more or less soundly if this case had come out the other way.