3 ms·

That's not what this does. This moved the power from agencies to the courts, not to Congress. Congress always had the ability to clarify or change the laws. The

That's not what this does. This moved the power from agencies to the courts, not to Congress. Congress always had the ability to clarify or change the laws. The problem was how to interpret those laws. Under Chevron if the agency made a reasonable interpretation of the law as decided by a court, then the agencies interpretation was followed. Under this new ruling, sole interpretation of the regulatory laws is now in the hands of the courts. Nothing whatsoever was returned to Congress.

mmaniac 2y ago
Thanks for the correction.
KevinMS 2y ago
If the interpretation of the law is too vague the court determines its unenforceable then congress has to make a better law. It doesn't shift the power to the courts.
- kllrnohj 2y ago
  And what exactly happens in the meantime? That thing is now decided to be unregulated by the courts. There's no atomicity to "kick back to Congress" and Congress always had the power to override agencies regardless. This is 100% unambiguously a power shift from agencies to courts. The opinion literally stated as much: > Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do. - Chief Justice John Roberts
  - KevinMS 2y ago
    > And what exactly happens in the meantime? That thing is now decided to be unregulated by the courts. If something cant be written into an actual law, maybe the law shouldnt exist? Why must we err on the side of regulation? Congress is supposed to be doing its job representing voters and writing clear bills, not writing fill in the blank laws. Make those you vote into office accountable for their responsibilities.
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      > Make those you vote into office accountable for their responsibilities. This sounds nice but it doesnt work. Americans widely despise congress but like their own representative. Telling voters "make your representative accountable" will not fix anything. I would like for congress to be an effective body that is able to pass laws that are widely popular, but we can all see that that just is not the reality we are working with.
      - KevinMS 2y ago
        Maybe I'm old fashioned but I would like my elected officials who are hired to write the laws to actually write the laws.
        HDThoreaun 2y ago
        I would too. But theyre not doing it. Now what? Americans have been trying to fix congress since the 90s and it has only gotten worse. Why do you think theyll suddenly decide to start doing their jobs now?
        KevinMS 2y ago
        > But theyre not doing it. Maybe because they can get away with not doing it because of chevron?
    - kllrnohj 2y ago
      And what about the gap between a new thing existing and Congress taking an official stance on it? Should Bitcoin be unregulated simply because crypto didn't exist when the IRS and SEC were established, despite glaringly obvious similarities? How about the Internet & FCC? This insistence that it's now about Congress being in charge is just gaslighting. Congress was always in charge. They were in charge under Chevron, too. This is about moving power to the courts and away from experts, plain and simple. It's logically unsound and a complete joke of a reasoning in the majority opinion to justify it. And again the SC itself literally said the goal was to move power from agencies to courts. Insisting otherwise is just willfully ignorant at best, outright propaganda at worst. And literally one of the first uses of this new ruling was to strip the EPA of its ability to regulate environmental impact: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/30/supreme-court-curbs-epas-power-to-regulate-emissions-and-fight-climate-change/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/30/supreme... Societal health and well being is being stripped and sold to profit the rich by letting corrupt courts decide matters of expert nuance.

mmaniac 2y ago

Thanks for the correction.

KevinMS 2y ago

If the interpretation of the law is too vague the court determines its unenforceable then congress has to make a better law. It doesn't shift the power to the courts.

kllrnohj 2y ago
And what exactly happens in the meantime? That thing is now decided to be unregulated by the courts. There's no atomicity to "kick back to Congress" and Congress always had the power to override agencies regardless. This is 100% unambiguously a power shift from agencies to courts. The opinion literally stated as much: > Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do. - Chief Justice John Roberts
- KevinMS 2y ago
  > And what exactly happens in the meantime? That thing is now decided to be unregulated by the courts. If something cant be written into an actual law, maybe the law shouldnt exist? Why must we err on the side of regulation? Congress is supposed to be doing its job representing voters and writing clear bills, not writing fill in the blank laws. Make those you vote into office accountable for their responsibilities.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    > Make those you vote into office accountable for their responsibilities. This sounds nice but it doesnt work. Americans widely despise congress but like their own representative. Telling voters "make your representative accountable" will not fix anything. I would like for congress to be an effective body that is able to pass laws that are widely popular, but we can all see that that just is not the reality we are working with.
    - KevinMS 2y ago
      Maybe I'm old fashioned but I would like my elected officials who are hired to write the laws to actually write the laws.
      - HDThoreaun 2y ago
        I would too. But theyre not doing it. Now what? Americans have been trying to fix congress since the 90s and it has only gotten worse. Why do you think theyll suddenly decide to start doing their jobs now?
        KevinMS 2y ago
        > But theyre not doing it. Maybe because they can get away with not doing it because of chevron?
  - kllrnohj 2y ago
    And what about the gap between a new thing existing and Congress taking an official stance on it? Should Bitcoin be unregulated simply because crypto didn't exist when the IRS and SEC were established, despite glaringly obvious similarities? How about the Internet & FCC? This insistence that it's now about Congress being in charge is just gaslighting. Congress was always in charge. They were in charge under Chevron, too. This is about moving power to the courts and away from experts, plain and simple. It's logically unsound and a complete joke of a reasoning in the majority opinion to justify it. And again the SC itself literally said the goal was to move power from agencies to courts. Insisting otherwise is just willfully ignorant at best, outright propaganda at worst. And literally one of the first uses of this new ruling was to strip the EPA of its ability to regulate environmental impact: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/30/supreme-court-curbs-epas-power-to-regulate-emissions-and-fight-climate-change/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/30/supreme... Societal health and well being is being stripped and sold to profit the rich by letting corrupt courts decide matters of expert nuance.