4 ms·

The humorous thing is that when I learned about the Chevron decision in law school, it was described as an attempt by the conservative judiciary to restrict reg

The humorous thing is that when I learned about the Chevron decision in law school, it was described as an attempt by the conservative judiciary to restrict regulatory oversight of businesses... The difference between Chevron and Loper was that the Chevron decision actually took the real world into account. The decision noted that agencies simply needed a delegation of authority from Congress as Congress could not be expected to think of every little thing; the agencies existed to deal with that sort of minutiae. However, Loper throws the real world (and actual history) out the window and requires that Congress explicitly authorize every little thing an agency does; a strict (i.e., "textual") reading of the Loper decision would mean that federal agencies could not even change the toilet paper in their offices without Congressional authorization. (Yes, this is a silly example but that's why textualism has only ever been embraced by extreme far-right justices; you need to be dissociated from the consequences of your actions in order to justify using textualism in a SCOTUS decision affecting hundreds of millions of people.)

skissane 2y ago
> The humorous thing is that when I learned about the Chevron decision in law school, it was described as an attempt by the conservative judiciary to restrict regulatory oversight of businesses... It’s ironic - in 1984, SCOTUS ruled against environmentalists and in favour of an oil company that wanted to pollute more. And at the time liberals and environmentalists condemned the decision, and conservatives praised it. By 2024, the situation had reversed: conservatives now condemning the decision and calling for its reversal, liberals and environmentalists defending it and calling for it to be upheld It is as if everyone just forgot what the original Chevron case was actually about Furthermore, in Chevron they were overturning an appellate court ruling written by future justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It’s also ironic to hear liberals, many of whom praise RBG and have a high opinion of her, defending a conservative decision in which her ruling on environmental law was overturned
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

skissane 2y ago

> The humorous thing is that when I learned about the Chevron decision in law school, it was described as an attempt by the conservative judiciary to restrict regulatory oversight of businesses... It’s ironic - in 1984, SCOTUS ruled against environmentalists and in favour of an oil company that wanted to pollute more. And at the time liberals and environmentalists condemned the decision, and conservatives praised it. By 2024, the situation had reversed: conservatives now condemning the decision and calling for its reversal, liberals and environmentalists defending it and calling for it to be upheld It is as if everyone just forgot what the original Chevron case was actually about Furthermore, in Chevron they were overturning an appellate court ruling written by future justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It’s also ironic to hear liberals, many of whom praise RBG and have a high opinion of her, defending a conservative decision in which her ruling on environmental law was overturned

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]