3 ms·

This is disingenuous. The claim of Chevron supporters is that we need to defer to the agencies because they can make decisions based on technical expertise tha

This is disingenuous. The claim of Chevron supporters is that we need to defer to the agencies because they can make decisions based on technical expertise that the political branches don't have. But the example proves that is not what is happening. The fact that the rules changed every time the administration changed proves that these are, in fact, political decisions being made under the guise of technical expertise. What is really happening is legislation by the executive branch which is blatantly unconstitutional.

thfuran 2y ago
It's not unconstitutional for Congress to pass legislation delegating authority over certain areas to executive agencies.
wwweston 2y ago
If different rulings by different people prove that expertise wasn't applied, it's equally credible to claim that expertise wasn't applied in the creation of this decision, since it's certainly a change. Additionally, it's far from clear the examples reviewed were representative vs written to support the conclusion, so in addition to the problem of how variance is framed as a bug rather than a feature, it's not even really clear how much is actually occurring. "Elections have consequences" is a well-known phenomena, and the idea that a branch other than the legislature might have influence over how the law is interpreted or executed shouldn't be news to anybody, least of all a member of the judiciary, many of whom will in fact be no doubt less qualified to make judgments vs agencies with specific technical and legal expertise.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  Take the example from this decision itself. The Department of Commerce issued a rule requiring certain fishermen to have federal observers on their boats and pay a fee. This decision was not made with any expertise and is not even the type of decision that can be made scientifically. It is purely a political decision that has nothing to do with any technical expertise. Yet the agency still argued it was unreviewable under Chevron. It doesn't matter if the example is representative. It doesn't matter if it is 1%, 10%, or 50%. If agencies are able to act as a political branch and use Chevron as a cover to make these political decisions immune to judicial review, then the system is broken and needs to be fixed. This is like defending qualified immunity for police by saying "well the arrests you presented where the police used the QI defense to cover over egregious rights violations are not a representative sample of all arrests made by the police."

thfuran 2y ago

It's not unconstitutional for Congress to pass legislation delegating authority over certain areas to executive agencies.

wwweston 2y ago

If different rulings by different people prove that expertise wasn't applied, it's equally credible to claim that expertise wasn't applied in the creation of this decision, since it's certainly a change. Additionally, it's far from clear the examples reviewed were representative vs written to support the conclusion, so in addition to the problem of how variance is framed as a bug rather than a feature, it's not even really clear how much is actually occurring. "Elections have consequences" is a well-known phenomena, and the idea that a branch other than the legislature might have influence over how the law is interpreted or executed shouldn't be news to anybody, least of all a member of the judiciary, many of whom will in fact be no doubt less qualified to make judgments vs agencies with specific technical and legal expertise.

fallingknife 2y ago
Take the example from this decision itself. The Department of Commerce issued a rule requiring certain fishermen to have federal observers on their boats and pay a fee. This decision was not made with any expertise and is not even the type of decision that can be made scientifically. It is purely a political decision that has nothing to do with any technical expertise. Yet the agency still argued it was unreviewable under Chevron. It doesn't matter if the example is representative. It doesn't matter if it is 1%, 10%, or 50%. If agencies are able to act as a political branch and use Chevron as a cover to make these political decisions immune to judicial review, then the system is broken and needs to be fixed. This is like defending qualified immunity for police by saying "well the arrests you presented where the police used the QI defense to cover over egregious rights violations are not a representative sample of all arrests made by the police."