4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.
- KevinMS 2y ago
  > This is about moving power to the courts and away from experts, plain and simple. Who's experts are these? The ones I agree with, or the ones you agree with?
  - kllrnohj 2y ago
    In this case experts in their respective fields, at least that's the theory that was the justification for Chevron in the first place and it definitely held up just fine. As in, the doctors the FDA employs would be the ones primarily driving decisions like "is this a drug? is it safe?" rather than the politically appointed judges who are categorically never experts in these questions as they have no education on the matter and are not expected to have education on the matter. Whether or not you believe them or agree with them is largely irrelevant. There is the political issue that the heads of these agencies tend to change political hands every 4-8 years, but moving all decision making to appointed judges is certainly not a step towards addressing that problem in the slightest.

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.

KevinMS 2y ago
> This is about moving power to the courts and away from experts, plain and simple. Who's experts are these? The ones I agree with, or the ones you agree with?
- kllrnohj 2y ago
  In this case experts in their respective fields, at least that's the theory that was the justification for Chevron in the first place and it definitely held up just fine. As in, the doctors the FDA employs would be the ones primarily driving decisions like "is this a drug? is it safe?" rather than the politically appointed judges who are categorically never experts in these questions as they have no education on the matter and are not expected to have education on the matter. Whether or not you believe them or agree with them is largely irrelevant. There is the political issue that the heads of these agencies tend to change political hands every 4-8 years, but moving all decision making to appointed judges is certainly not a step towards addressing that problem in the slightest.