4 ms·

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 exi

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.
  - KevinMS 2y ago
    > As in, the doctors the FDA employs would be the ones primarily driving decisions like "is this a drug? is it safe?" You might want to look more closely into that one.

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.
- KevinMS 2y ago
  > As in, the doctors the FDA employs would be the ones primarily driving decisions like "is this a drug? is it safe?" You might want to look more closely into that one.