3 ms·

It's important to note that balajis is anti-regulation, so his bias points out all the downsides of Chevron while ignoring the benefits.

somenameforme 2y ago
What were the benefits? The problem I have with the system is that if there was some concept that 'needed' to be regulated, there's absolutely nothing stopping Congress from doing so. In fact there's also nothing stopping various regulatory agencies from doing so. But Chevron deference essentially removed the check-and-balance that the judicial system provided, in cases where regulators may have gone beyond their legal authority, or even contravened it.
- redserk 2y ago
  Congress could have issued a law in the last 40 years —- where there were opportunities for both political parties —- clarifying this if the legislative branch disagreed. …if we’re going along with the logic this court has been working with here.
- hanniabu 2y ago
  > if there was some concept that 'needed' to be regulated, there's absolutely nothing stopping Congress from doing so Theoretically, but in reality there's corruption and partisan gridlock and nothing gets done
- StewardMcOy 2y ago
  One benefit of Chevron was the recent banning of non-competes. If you're interested in fostering innovation, banning non-competes is a good idea. [1] The idea that Congress could and pass regulations in a timely manner is a nice one. Unfortunately, Congress is almost completely dysfunctional, so there's a near-zero chance of that happening. Many of the recent Supreme Court rulings seem to hinge on this idea that Congress can and should fulfill its role. And while that would be great, it completely ignores the reality of modern Congress. I fear we're going to suffer some extreme effects because the court is ruling based on how they think things ought to be, rather than what things are. 1: https://hbr.org/2023/02/banning-noncompetes-is-good-for-innovation https://hbr.org/2023/02/banning-noncompetes-is-good-for-inno...
jkic47 2y ago
It is even more important to note that the relationship between Companies and Regulators is not always confrontational. Our interests align more often than not (anecdote below). However, regulators occasionally overstep, and this decision allows Companies to challenge such oversteps. I once ran a chemical plant and we partnered with the state to reduce emissions to single-digit parts per billion levels (from parts per million). They were completely aware that this was a difficult problem to solve, expensive, and technically challenging. They worked with us to get this done in a space of a couple of years, and we quickly reached a point where we could proudly state that we made a difference to my employees and our surrounding community. When you don't have to pay for something it is easy to ask for more, and an agency led by a partisan could easily do so. Having the ability to challenge this allows us to push back in a structured way.
- hanniabu 2y ago
  > They were completely aware that this was a difficult problem to solve, expensive, and technically challenging. And it's also a responsibility you take on in starting a company with a byproduct that (I'm assuming) is toxic.
  - jkic47 2y ago
    As with most things, it can be more nuanced than your comment suggests. At the time this chemical was introduced, the hazards were not known to science. Over the decades, scientists began outlining the effects of this chemical on humans and the environment. Once industry was able to study those findings and convince ourselves that this was a real problem, we adapted our operations to mitigate those harms. Most industries in the US work pretty hard to keep our employees and environments safe, for self preservation, if for nothing else. I breathe the same air as my employees do, after all. Most regulatory agencies are aware that dangerous chemicals have legitimate uses. The problem statement is how to balance those uses against the known hazards. They (mostly) find a sensible balance, but sometimes, they get taken over by leaders who push it too far in one direction or another. Overturning Chevron allows adjudication to reset the balance and that should be seen as a good thing.

somenameforme 2y ago

What were the benefits? The problem I have with the system is that if there was some concept that 'needed' to be regulated, there's absolutely nothing stopping Congress from doing so. In fact there's also nothing stopping various regulatory agencies from doing so. But Chevron deference essentially removed the check-and-balance that the judicial system provided, in cases where regulators may have gone beyond their legal authority, or even contravened it.

redserk 2y ago
Congress could have issued a law in the last 40 years —- where there were opportunities for both political parties —- clarifying this if the legislative branch disagreed. …if we’re going along with the logic this court has been working with here.
hanniabu 2y ago
> if there was some concept that 'needed' to be regulated, there's absolutely nothing stopping Congress from doing so Theoretically, but in reality there's corruption and partisan gridlock and nothing gets done
StewardMcOy 2y ago
One benefit of Chevron was the recent banning of non-competes. If you're interested in fostering innovation, banning non-competes is a good idea. [1] The idea that Congress could and pass regulations in a timely manner is a nice one. Unfortunately, Congress is almost completely dysfunctional, so there's a near-zero chance of that happening. Many of the recent Supreme Court rulings seem to hinge on this idea that Congress can and should fulfill its role. And while that would be great, it completely ignores the reality of modern Congress. I fear we're going to suffer some extreme effects because the court is ruling based on how they think things ought to be, rather than what things are. 1: https://hbr.org/2023/02/banning-noncompetes-is-good-for-innovation https://hbr.org/2023/02/banning-noncompetes-is-good-for-inno...

jkic47 2y ago

It is even more important to note that the relationship between Companies and Regulators is not always confrontational. Our interests align more often than not (anecdote below). However, regulators occasionally overstep, and this decision allows Companies to challenge such oversteps. I once ran a chemical plant and we partnered with the state to reduce emissions to single-digit parts per billion levels (from parts per million). They were completely aware that this was a difficult problem to solve, expensive, and technically challenging. They worked with us to get this done in a space of a couple of years, and we quickly reached a point where we could proudly state that we made a difference to my employees and our surrounding community. When you don't have to pay for something it is easy to ask for more, and an agency led by a partisan could easily do so. Having the ability to challenge this allows us to push back in a structured way.

hanniabu 2y ago
> They were completely aware that this was a difficult problem to solve, expensive, and technically challenging. And it's also a responsibility you take on in starting a company with a byproduct that (I'm assuming) is toxic.
- jkic47 2y ago
  As with most things, it can be more nuanced than your comment suggests. At the time this chemical was introduced, the hazards were not known to science. Over the decades, scientists began outlining the effects of this chemical on humans and the environment. Once industry was able to study those findings and convince ourselves that this was a real problem, we adapted our operations to mitigate those harms. Most industries in the US work pretty hard to keep our employees and environments safe, for self preservation, if for nothing else. I breathe the same air as my employees do, after all. Most regulatory agencies are aware that dangerous chemicals have legitimate uses. The problem statement is how to balance those uses against the known hazards. They (mostly) find a sensible balance, but sometimes, they get taken over by leaders who push it too far in one direction or another. Overturning Chevron allows adjudication to reset the balance and that should be seen as a good thing.