6 ms·

> The concern now, apparently, is that administrations are using agency flexibility to subvert electoral politics. That's very charitable. A less charitable v

> 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 ago
That'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 ago
  Wouldn’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 ago
    I 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.
tpmoney 2y ago
I feel like if instead of deferring to the EPA, the Chevron case was deferring to police departments interpretations of the law when the law was ambiguous, we would be cheering this decision as a return to sanity. I wouldn't want the default assumption of the courts to be that when the law is unclear, whatever the sheriff or the highway patrol decides is illegal this month is, and next month or next election it could be something else entirely. In such cases I would absolutely want the courts to evaluate that ambiguity by treating both sides of the argument equally and weighing the law as it stands. So it seems like it should be the same when it comes to regulatory rule making as well. If the law is unclear, deferring to the enforcers of that law seems no different than deferring to the cops. The court system and the government as a whole is already institutionally biased towards the government, without any need for an explicit policy to prefer the government's side.
- autoexec 2y ago
  > I feel like if instead of deferring to the EPA, the Chevron case was deferring to police departments interpretations of the law when the law was ambiguous, we would be cheering this decision as a return to sanity. I doubt it. I think most people have some federal agency they aren't a huge fan of. Sure, the fact that Chevron helped to allow the EPA keep your air and water from being poisoned by greedy corporations who would do it in a second if it would make them more money helps to make it a more sympathetic cause, but it's not as if people aren't aware that the defense applied to every other agency too. > I wouldn't want the default assumption of the courts to be that when the law is unclear, whatever the sheriff or the highway patrol decides is illegal this month is That isn't a fair characterization of the situation. Even forgiving that the police aren't a federal agency, first a question around the legality of what the police were doing would have to reach the court in the first place, then the court would have to determine that an ambiguity in the law existed, and then the court would have to decide if the interpretation of the law that the police has been using is reasonable and only if it wasn't would the court impose its own interpretation. That seems pretty fair even in the case of the police. It's not about deferring to the enforcers of that law. It's about deferring to the law first, and only imposing a narrower interpretation if the enforcers of that law were already out of line. It just means that agencies aren't limited to the most narrow interpretation of the law as written.
rayiner 2y ago
[flagged]
- intended 2y ago
  The law includes precedent. If the court had a 50-50 split, then yes, your argument would carry merit. We can all disagree with court rulings, especially if we have experience in a domain. Our opinions can be right or wrong. However I think everyone can agree that a skewed court will never be trusted when its majority votes along party lines.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    What is a “skewed court?” We had a Democrat-majority court for decades after FDR won a series of key elections. We now have a Republican majority court because of Reagan, Bush, and Trump. Biden’s recent implosion will likely cement the 6-3 majority for some time. Democrat-appointees made huge changes to the constitution when we had a “skewed” court going the other way. I think those decisions were terribly wrong as a legal matter, but what’s dangerous is the effort to make it seem like they were illegitimate through the rhetoric that’s being spewed these days.
    - intended 2y ago
      This is an old comment, but I thought it was worth addressing since it brings up the point of rhetoric. The current crop of judges is absurdly partisan. This is no ordinary position, these judges are not regular Joes. Their opinions, their intellect, their fairness and open mindedness to address a case on its merits, is what their entire life time appointment is about. Being a Judge. Read Alito's dissenting opinion on Murthy. He depicts (not interpret) the whole case as government censorship. Mind you, this is the case where the government would have had to invent time travel to be culpable. > Plus, Facebook started targeting her content before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, page 3- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
- fedsocpuppet 2y ago

kolbe 2y ago

That'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 ago
Wouldn’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 ago
  I 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.

tpmoney 2y ago

I feel like if instead of deferring to the EPA, the Chevron case was deferring to police departments interpretations of the law when the law was ambiguous, we would be cheering this decision as a return to sanity. I wouldn't want the default assumption of the courts to be that when the law is unclear, whatever the sheriff or the highway patrol decides is illegal this month is, and next month or next election it could be something else entirely. In such cases I would absolutely want the courts to evaluate that ambiguity by treating both sides of the argument equally and weighing the law as it stands. So it seems like it should be the same when it comes to regulatory rule making as well. If the law is unclear, deferring to the enforcers of that law seems no different than deferring to the cops. The court system and the government as a whole is already institutionally biased towards the government, without any need for an explicit policy to prefer the government's side.

autoexec 2y ago
> I feel like if instead of deferring to the EPA, the Chevron case was deferring to police departments interpretations of the law when the law was ambiguous, we would be cheering this decision as a return to sanity. I doubt it. I think most people have some federal agency they aren't a huge fan of. Sure, the fact that Chevron helped to allow the EPA keep your air and water from being poisoned by greedy corporations who would do it in a second if it would make them more money helps to make it a more sympathetic cause, but it's not as if people aren't aware that the defense applied to every other agency too. > I wouldn't want the default assumption of the courts to be that when the law is unclear, whatever the sheriff or the highway patrol decides is illegal this month is That isn't a fair characterization of the situation. Even forgiving that the police aren't a federal agency, first a question around the legality of what the police were doing would have to reach the court in the first place, then the court would have to determine that an ambiguity in the law existed, and then the court would have to decide if the interpretation of the law that the police has been using is reasonable and only if it wasn't would the court impose its own interpretation. That seems pretty fair even in the case of the police. It's not about deferring to the enforcers of that law. It's about deferring to the law first, and only imposing a narrower interpretation if the enforcers of that law were already out of line. It just means that agencies aren't limited to the most narrow interpretation of the law as written.

rayiner 2y ago

[flagged]

intended 2y ago
The law includes precedent. If the court had a 50-50 split, then yes, your argument would carry merit. We can all disagree with court rulings, especially if we have experience in a domain. Our opinions can be right or wrong. However I think everyone can agree that a skewed court will never be trusted when its majority votes along party lines.
- rayiner 2y ago
  What is a “skewed court?” We had a Democrat-majority court for decades after FDR won a series of key elections. We now have a Republican majority court because of Reagan, Bush, and Trump. Biden’s recent implosion will likely cement the 6-3 majority for some time. Democrat-appointees made huge changes to the constitution when we had a “skewed” court going the other way. I think those decisions were terribly wrong as a legal matter, but what’s dangerous is the effort to make it seem like they were illegitimate through the rhetoric that’s being spewed these days.
  - intended 2y ago
    This is an old comment, but I thought it was worth addressing since it brings up the point of rhetoric. The current crop of judges is absurdly partisan. This is no ordinary position, these judges are not regular Joes. Their opinions, their intellect, their fairness and open mindedness to address a case on its merits, is what their entire life time appointment is about. Being a Judge. Read Alito's dissenting opinion on Murthy. He depicts (not interpret) the whole case as government censorship. Mind you, this is the case where the government would have had to invent time travel to be culpable. > Plus, Facebook started targeting her content before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, page 3- https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
fedsocpuppet 2y ago