3 ms·
You know, that makes sense to me as well. It seems courts just haven't done that, for some reason. Anyway, the way the Supreme Court works is that cases make
by BurningFrog 2y ago
You know, that makes sense to me as well.
It seems courts just haven't done that, for some reason.
Anyway, the way the Supreme Court works is that cases make their way all the way up there not just to settle a fishing village quibble, but to decide if the underlying law is good or bad.
And so it becomes the occasion for conservative justices to do away with what they've thought was wrong for decades.
- skissane 2y ago> And so it becomes the occasion for conservative justices to do away with what they've thought was wrong for decades. I wonder for how many decades? Chevron is 40 years old. It was a 6-0 decision (two justices were sick and one recused herself due to conflicts of interest). It was overturning a pro-environment/anti-pollution ruling by the court of appeals below-written by RBG, before she joined the Supreme Court. At the time it was handed down, conservatives cheered it, while liberals and environmentalists condemned it. Obviously at some point the tables turned, conservatives soured on it, liberals decided they liked it after all. But I wonder when in those 40 years was the decisive tipping point, at which the majority of its critics went from being liberals to being conservatives.
- BurningFrog 2y agoThis article describes the history of how the 1984 decision took a life of its own: https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2023/chevron-doctrine https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2023/chevron-doctrine > No one expected the Supreme Court decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council would become a landmark of federal administrative law, least of all its author.