6 ms·

>Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress. It would literally be impossi

by tw04 2y ago

>Fundamentally there’s nothing wrong with the position of supreme court to push the responsibility of lawmaking back on congress. It would literally be impossible for congress to make a law covering every single nuance agencies are tasked with. This Supreme Court knows it. This is nothing more than deregulation on a scale not seen in modern American history. When you can’t find clean drinking water in 30 years, this will be why.

r3db34rd 2y ago
There will always be clean drinking water. Stop spreading FUD.
0xBDB 2y ago
> When you can’t find clean drinking water in 30 years, this will be why. If you can find clean water in 30 years, it may be because reasonable judges were not required to defer to the environmental science of the Trump EPA. Chevron was imposed in the first place to help the Reagan EPA narrow environmental regulations. In any case the vast majority of judges will probably keep deferring to the regulators in most cases. They aren't forbidden to, they're just no longer required to.
sleight42 2y ago
Why stop at drinking water? If it's not codified in legislation, it will now be fair game for corporate America to exploit. Up until now, companies had to cannibalize their customers when they could no longer find legal ways to grow. This will be enshittification like we've never seen. Instead of cannibalizing their customers, corporations will be able to cannibalize and exploit everything else that isn't explicitly nailed down in legislation. In essence, this is likely the next Citizens United: another massive power grab for corporate America, the richest, at the expense of the people who populate the country.
xray2 2y ago
Lol it’s going to take 30 years to take effect? Delusional take.
drrskino 2y ago
The people trying to downplay this being a brazen partisan ploy at deregulation are not doing a very good job.
- rayiner 2y ago
  How do you figure that overturning a decision that ruled in favor of an oil company and against the NRDC is a partisan ploy? For which party?
lacy_tinpot 2y ago
> It would literally be impossible for congress to make a law covering every single nuance agencies are tasked with. What does that even mean? Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no? If not... well I mean that's straight up irresponsible. The other part of this I don't get is that people have been complaining about the "Revolving Door" problem in these agencies for a long time now. They're not sacred, and further we know they're not sacred because we've been complaining about their corruption. So why pretend they're sacred now? Why are there no solutions? The problem with a lot of the called "progressives" is that they've adhered to a different kind of conservatism, where while the ideals are progressive, every single instance of actually implementing those ideals are conservative and play to old power structure. Where are the progressive iconoclasts?
- advael 2y ago
  Generally speaking they are considered "unelectable" and thus mostly exert influence indirectly if at all. Especially in the United States, even many "progressive" causes that have become relatively mainstream (in terms of popular support) are viewed by most people as having very little actual political representation due to the two-party system, and this has been well-understood by most people who call themselves progressives for several decades.
- creer 2y ago
  > Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no? I don't even see why such a law would have to name any agency. It could be a generic, "yes Supreme Court we do intend to let the executive fill in the blank in the law through regulations - that's why we call them regulations". Even if that failed (perhaps on constitutional grounds), they could periodically accept agency regulation revisions and pass them into law.
  - FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
    They could, but with a party like the GOP it won’t happen.
- hamasho 2y ago
philwelch 2y ago
[flagged]
- rhinoceraptor 2y ago
  There was leaded gasoline which even at the time it was introduced was known to cause brain damage.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    The EPA began phasing out leaded gasoline 9 years before Chevron. Also, Chevron ruled in favor of an oil company.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  No, there wasn’t - your rivers were catching fire https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught...
r3db34rd 2y ago
[flagged]
rayiner 2y ago
Overruling Chevron doesn't require Congress to make laws covering every nuance. It just changes who resolves ambiguities in the laws. The irony of your comment is that federal clean-water legislation dates to 1948. The governing precedent at the time was Skidmore v. Swift, under which courts deferred to agency interpretations of statutes tot he extent the court found them persuasive. That regime functioned just fine for 40 years before Chevron changed the law. Chevron, of course, was a case where the Reagan EPA interpreted the word "source" in the Clean Air Act to refer to an entire plant, rather than a distinct pollution source. The D.C. Circuit, in a decision written by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, disagreed with the EPA's interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the EPA was empowered to resolve such ambiguities in the text of the statutes.
amgreg 2y ago
This case is about whose interpretation gets to fill in the gaps. The statute (APA) requires courts to form an independent judgment about the gaps. The Chevron doctrine required courts in certain cases to set this judgment aside in favor of an agency’s judgment—-basically on the basis that the agencies are closer to the problems and know better. This setting aside may be the better outcome, however it is not explicitly specified in the statute (APA). Ultimately, if Congress wants this to be the case, they /can/ amend the statute (APA), effectively enshrining the Chevron doctrine. At the end of the day, the court’s decision here rests on statutory interpretation (not constitutional doctrine) so Congress could change the outcome by amending the statute (APA) to explicitly codify Chevron. This would be achieved with its ordinary legislative power (Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution). The court’s decision does effectively put the ball back in Congress’ court.
- prrrywinkle 2y ago
  [dead]

by tw04 2y ago

r3db34rd 2y ago

There will always be clean drinking water. Stop spreading FUD.

0xBDB 2y ago

> When you can’t find clean drinking water in 30 years, this will be why. If you can find clean water in 30 years, it may be because reasonable judges were not required to defer to the environmental science of the Trump EPA. Chevron was imposed in the first place to help the Reagan EPA narrow environmental regulations. In any case the vast majority of judges will probably keep deferring to the regulators in most cases. They aren't forbidden to, they're just no longer required to.

sleight42 2y ago

Why stop at drinking water? If it's not codified in legislation, it will now be fair game for corporate America to exploit. Up until now, companies had to cannibalize their customers when they could no longer find legal ways to grow. This will be enshittification like we've never seen. Instead of cannibalizing their customers, corporations will be able to cannibalize and exploit everything else that isn't explicitly nailed down in legislation. In essence, this is likely the next Citizens United: another massive power grab for corporate America, the richest, at the expense of the people who populate the country.

xray2 2y ago

Lol it’s going to take 30 years to take effect? Delusional take.

drrskino 2y ago

The people trying to downplay this being a brazen partisan ploy at deregulation are not doing a very good job.

rayiner 2y ago
How do you figure that overturning a decision that ruled in favor of an oil company and against the NRDC is a partisan ploy? For which party?

lacy_tinpot 2y ago

> It would literally be impossible for congress to make a law covering every single nuance agencies are tasked with. What does that even mean? Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no? If not... well I mean that's straight up irresponsible. The other part of this I don't get is that people have been complaining about the "Revolving Door" problem in these agencies for a long time now. They're not sacred, and further we know they're not sacred because we've been complaining about their corruption. So why pretend they're sacred now? Why are there no solutions? The problem with a lot of the called "progressives" is that they've adhered to a different kind of conservatism, where while the ideals are progressive, every single instance of actually implementing those ideals are conservative and play to old power structure. Where are the progressive iconoclasts?

advael 2y ago
Generally speaking they are considered "unelectable" and thus mostly exert influence indirectly if at all. Especially in the United States, even many "progressive" causes that have become relatively mainstream (in terms of popular support) are viewed by most people as having very little actual political representation due to the two-party system, and this has been well-understood by most people who call themselves progressives for several decades.
creer 2y ago
> Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no? I don't even see why such a law would have to name any agency. It could be a generic, "yes Supreme Court we do intend to let the executive fill in the blank in the law through regulations - that's why we call them regulations". Even if that failed (perhaps on constitutional grounds), they could periodically accept agency regulation revisions and pass them into law.
- FranzFerdiNaN 2y ago
  They could, but with a party like the GOP it won’t happen.
hamasho 2y ago

philwelch 2y ago

[flagged]

rhinoceraptor 2y ago
There was leaded gasoline which even at the time it was introduced was known to cause brain damage.
- rayiner 2y ago
  The EPA began phasing out leaded gasoline 9 years before Chevron. Also, Chevron ruled in favor of an oil company.
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
No, there wasn’t - your rivers were catching fire https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught...

r3db34rd 2y ago

[flagged]

rayiner 2y ago

Overruling Chevron doesn't require Congress to make laws covering every nuance. It just changes who resolves ambiguities in the laws. The irony of your comment is that federal clean-water legislation dates to 1948. The governing precedent at the time was Skidmore v. Swift, under which courts deferred to agency interpretations of statutes tot he extent the court found them persuasive. That regime functioned just fine for 40 years before Chevron changed the law. Chevron, of course, was a case where the Reagan EPA interpreted the word "source" in the Clean Air Act to refer to an entire plant, rather than a distinct pollution source. The D.C. Circuit, in a decision written by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, disagreed with the EPA's interpretation of the law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the EPA was empowered to resolve such ambiguities in the text of the statutes.

amgreg 2y ago

This case is about whose interpretation gets to fill in the gaps. The statute (APA) requires courts to form an independent judgment about the gaps. The Chevron doctrine required courts in certain cases to set this judgment aside in favor of an agency’s judgment—-basically on the basis that the agencies are closer to the problems and know better. This setting aside may be the better outcome, however it is not explicitly specified in the statute (APA). Ultimately, if Congress wants this to be the case, they /can/ amend the statute (APA), effectively enshrining the Chevron doctrine. At the end of the day, the court’s decision here rests on statutory interpretation (not constitutional doctrine) so Congress could change the outcome by amending the statute (APA) to explicitly codify Chevron. This would be achieved with its ordinary legislative power (Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution). The court’s decision does effectively put the ball back in Congress’ court.

prrrywinkle 2y ago
[dead]