3 ms·

Chevron deference came from a case in 1984, so any "sky is falling" argument should explain why the sky didn't fall before then. Note that the Natural Resource

by anamax 2y ago

Chevron deference came from a case in 1984, so any "sky is falling" argument should explain why the sky didn't fall before then. Note that the Natural Resources Defense Council was the LOSING litigant in that case. (I don't understand why Chevron, the evil oil company, was defending the EPA's authority, but ....) I mention that because many of the groups arguing now that eliminating Chevron deference is horrible argued the exact opposite in 1984.

anon373839 2y ago
> I don't understand why Chevron, the evil oil company, was defending the EPA's authority Because in 1981, Reagan was sworn in and the EPA began deregulating. NRDC sued to block the EPA’s then-updated interpretation of the word “source” in the Clean Air Act, which provided companies a way to bypass certain regulations. Chevron liked this, and liked the direction Reagan was taking the EPA, so it suited them to argue for deference to the agency’s interpretations. Now that the administrative agencies have been adopting more aggressively left-wing interpretations, it suits the right wing to remove that deference. Presumably, the Supreme Court will just change its mind again if Republicans hold government again and it becomes expedient for them.
- fargle 2y ago
  ^^ this exactly. it doesn't matter which wing you like, all outcomes of chevron were bad. the over-turning is not. you may or may not like the decisions of congress. you may or may not like the decisions of a court. i could live with either. but an unaccountable bureaucracy's kangaroo court needs to be checked severely.
tw04 2y ago
What are you taking about? A river literally started on fire because it was so polluted, which prompted the formation of the EPA. The sky absolutely “was falling” prior to 1984, it just took folks way longer than it should have to figure out how badly corporations were destroying our lakes and rivers. https://www.history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahoga-river-fire-clean-water-act https://www.history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahog...

by anamax 2y ago

anon373839 2y ago

> I don't understand why Chevron, the evil oil company, was defending the EPA's authority Because in 1981, Reagan was sworn in and the EPA began deregulating. NRDC sued to block the EPA’s then-updated interpretation of the word “source” in the Clean Air Act, which provided companies a way to bypass certain regulations. Chevron liked this, and liked the direction Reagan was taking the EPA, so it suited them to argue for deference to the agency’s interpretations. Now that the administrative agencies have been adopting more aggressively left-wing interpretations, it suits the right wing to remove that deference. Presumably, the Supreme Court will just change its mind again if Republicans hold government again and it becomes expedient for them.

fargle 2y ago
^^ this exactly. it doesn't matter which wing you like, all outcomes of chevron were bad. the over-turning is not. you may or may not like the decisions of congress. you may or may not like the decisions of a court. i could live with either. but an unaccountable bureaucracy's kangaroo court needs to be checked severely.

tw04 2y ago

What are you taking about? A river literally started on fire because it was so polluted, which prompted the formation of the EPA. The sky absolutely “was falling” prior to 1984, it just took folks way longer than it should have to figure out how badly corporations were destroying our lakes and rivers. https://www.history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahoga-river-fire-clean-water-act https://www.history.com/news/epa-earth-day-cleveland-cuyahog...