9 ms·
What Was Chevron Deference? (2023)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- kelseyfrog 2y agoWould I be right to assume this means more regulatory lawsuits not fewer?
- phone8675309 2y agoThe entire point of this case was to dismantle the as many regulations as possible. The end goal is to make sure all federal regulations come from Congress, which limits what regulations can be made because the Republicans will just say no to everything.
- aredox 2y agoExactly not: there is now even more need for minute regulations, drafted by lobbyists and hapless politicians.
- kelseyfrog 2y agoMy understanding is that ambiguity in regulations was decided by agency. This would be an incentive for legislature/regulators to define in excruciating detail the precise boundaries of the regulations which definitely means more. Perhaps even several orders of magnitude more regulation.
- rootusrootus 2y ago> Perhaps even several orders of magnitude more regulation. And all of it will be written by corporate lobbyists. It's already that way now, of course, it's not like congressmen write any meaningful amount of legislation themselves, but now there will be an even larger army of unelected special interests making sure the regulations are very carefully tailored in their own best interests.
- jerf 2y agoIt doesn't immediately do so, though. Part of the ruling is that the status quo is maintained; there's no obligation for agencies to proactively remove regulations in response to how they guess some court somewhere might rule on a hypothetical lawsuit. So lawsuits have to be filed, first. So they will. Some of them may be resolved by the agencies just rolling over and doing the moral equivalent of pleading guilty, but if I know my principles of bureaucracy, that will be the rare exception, probably only so they can dedicate resources to some other more important lawsuit.
- mrguyorama 2y agoAnd the point of the "maintain status quo" part is to ensure the pain comes slowly, over the course of a decade or so, as court cases make their way through the system, only taking tiny bites out of the regulatory framework at a time, to make it really hard to point out how much overturning Chevron has hurt regulation in the US
- impalallama 2y agoIt’s been explicit goal of Conservatives for decades to remove “over regulation” and now thanks to this precedent newly instantiated corporations in the Texas 5th district can shop around to whatever judge they want and effectively strip any regulation now and forever; which has in fact already happened with a Texas judge ruling the FTC can’t ban non compete clauses (https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/07/10/preliminary-injunction-ftcs-non-compete-ban-marks-narrow-key-victory-opponents/id=178700/# https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/07/10/preliminary-injunction-ftc...)
- rootusrootus 2y agoThat works right up until the moment the other side gets enough power to write some very specific regulations that are not open to interpretation. I am not convinced that the Conservatives will like the long term result of this decision; unintended consequences, etc. As usual, partisans have blinders on and consistently assume that this time they will permanently gain power and these choices can never be used by their opponents.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- phone8675309 2y ago> That works right up until the moment the other side gets enough power to write some very specific regulations that are not open to interpretation. You assume the Democrats want to govern instead of capitulate to the Republicans after enough delay.
- jandrese 2y agoThe result is to give more power to the courts, not Congress. The safe assumption is that Congress will still write laws that are open to interpretation because otherwise the bills would be too big and complex for congressmen to handle. The difference is now when there is something ambiguous in the law the courts get to decide how it is interpreted instead of the relevant federal agencies because judges are better equipped to deal with the technical minutia of complex systems than the subject matter experts at the agencies. They are better equipped because the Heritage Foundation has been stacking the courts for years now in preparation for this ruling. My children may yet get to witness rivers catching on fire, a spectacle that had been denied to them by the killjoys at the EPA.
- jerf 2y agoAIUI they've already started to be filed, though I don't have a good normal news source I can find to link that fact. This may be because none of them are yet far enough along to be "newsworthy". Lawsuits of this sort take more than a couple of weeks to even get rolling. So I guess class this as rumor.
- azemetre 2y agoWith the added bonus of each jurisdiction’s judge deciding which regulations are too harsh against the poor corporations. My question is whether we will see the inverse happening: people suing local companies and winning lawsuits forcing the corpos to follow the law rather than relying on government agencies to do it on the public’s behalf.
- throwup238 2y agoI predict open warfare between the Ninth and Fifth Circuit.
- edgyquant 2y agoYou should look up the lawsuit that led to chevron being overturned, maybe you wouldn’t be making such a caricature out of it. Hint: it wasn’t some big corporation looking to skirt regulations.
- Hikikomori 2y agoYep, just two brothers named Koch.
- azemetre 2y agoThe political and business environments are absolutely not the same when a chevron was ruled. It’s completely disingenuous to say corpos will be ethical when you see what kinds of companies fight the EPA. Corporations have vastly more power and influence in our government than they did in the 50s or 60s or 70s or 80s. I do not trust these entities to stop rat fucking innocent Americans because they had the audacity to not want to be poisoned.
- affinepplan 2y agoLoper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo was brought by Ryan Mulvey and Eric Bolinder of the Americans for Prosperity, which is the primary advocacy arm of the Koch brothers to weaken various regulatory bodies. Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce was brought by lawyers from the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is also funded by the Koch brothers so hint: it definitely was "big" entities looking to skirt regulations
- TaylorAlexander 2y agoYes, way more. In Kagan’s dissent she talks about how the court will now need to decide minutiae of regulation not clearly laid out in the text, involving expertise the court doesn’t have. I can’t seem to copy and paste from this PDF on mobile, but the dissent is well worth a read: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf EDIT: On desktop, pasting in from the dissent: (Kagan's words) Consider a few examples from the caselaw. They will help show what a typical Chevron question looks like—or really, what a typical Chevron question is. Because when choosing whether to send some class of questions mainly to a court, or mainly to an agency, abstract analysis can only go so far; indeed, it may obscure what matters most. So I begin with the concrete: - Under the Public Health Service Act, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates “biological product[s],” including “protein[s].” 42 U. S. C. §262(i)(1). When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as such a “protein”? Must it have a specific, defined sequence of amino acids? See Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. FDA, 514 F. Supp. 3d 66, 79–80, 93–106 (DC 2020). - Under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wild- life Service must designate endangered “vertebrate fish or wildlife” species, including “distinct population seg- ment[s]” of those species. 16 U. S. C. §1532(16); see §1533. What makes one population segment “distinct” from another? Must the Service treat the Washington State population of western gray squirrels as “distinct” because it is geographically separated from other western gray squirrels? Or can the Service take into account that the genetic makeup of the Washington population does not differ markedly from the rest? See Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. United States Fish and Wildlife Serv., 475 F. 3d 1136, 1140–1145, 1149 (CA9 2007). - Under the Medicare program, reimbursements to hospitals are adjusted to reflect “differences in hospital wage levels” across “geographic area[s].” 42 U. S. C. §1395ww(d)(3)(E)(i). How should the Department of Health and Human Services measure a “geographic area”? By city? By county? By metropolitan area? See Bellevue Hospital Center v. Leavitt, 443 F. 3d 163, 174– 176 (CA2 2006). - Congress directed the Department of the Interior and the Federal Aviation Administration to reduce noise from aircraft flying over Grand Canyon National Park—specifically, to “provide for substantial restoration of the natural quiet.” §3(b)(1), 101 Stat. 676; see §3(b)(2). How much noise is consistent with “the natural quiet”? And how much of the park, for how many hours a day, must be that quiet for the “substantial restoration” requirement to be met? See Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition v. FAA, 154 F. 3d 455, 466–467, 474–475 (CADC 1998).
- benreesman 2y agoSeems likely. It’s at least another turn of the crank in the normalization of a quasi-legislative judiciary ever less concerned with seeming impartial. Lawsuits are costly in time and money: on balance one would expect more lawsuits as the judiciary becomes more powerful, and fewer the easier it becomes to predict how judges will rule. Which tendency is stronger remains to be seen.
- _DeadFred_ 2y agoYes. Please put some time into thinking about creative challenges to the surveillance state side of things. They want to limit agencies powers then surveillance powers should be the first we go after.
- ameister14 2y agoThat's not going to happen, unfortunately, because a lot of the surveillance powers are explicitly authorized or otherwise not ambiguous, and did not rely on Chevron deference.
- goodluckchuck 2y agoThis is a step towards a deeper and more established flaw: differing standards of review. It is clearly a violation of equal protection to give "strict scrutiny" to some claims, "intermediate scrutiny" to others, and then apply only a "rational basis" test to others. All parties are entitled to "equal paternal conservation of the law" regardless of their class, be that racial, sex, or otherwise. Early comments by justices in the 50s and 60s stated they never intended to establish such a paradigm, but law schools and lawyers adopted it and essentially foisted it upon the court.
- axus 2y agoNot knowing how it works: can the people filing lawsuits choose whatever court has judges with a history of cancelling regulations?
- Y-bar 2y agoLegal Eagle in his YouTube analysis on the matter said that corporations will absolutely be able to venue shop for favourable judges.
- theossuary 2y agoOverturning Chevron itself didn't allow for that, but the (less talked about but just as important) ruling in Corner Post did. The court ruled the default statute of limitations for an injury caused by a regulatory agency is six years from the time of first injury, instead of six years from the enactment of the policy (what it was originally). This means any interested party can create a new entity, fund it, and have it be injured by the policy they wish to challenge; and finally use it as the vehicle to sue the agency. Wherever this entity is created would then be where it'd have standing to sue, allowing for the shopping of a friendly judge. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/supreme-court-expands-time-frame-to-sue-federal-agencies/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/supreme-court-expands-tim...
- twoodfin 2y agoWhat paradigm is available to replace it? Not a Constitutional scholar (though I love the Oyez Project's podcast of SCOTUS oral arguments!), but surely you need the Court to apply a higher standard of review when Congress treads near free speech protections than when they're setting admiralty law. I suppose one could say, "Just read the text! Congress shall make no law..." But I think even the strictest originalist would concur that the Framers understood there would be times when Constitutional absolutes would come into conflict and reasonable judgments made, by the Executive, Congress, or the Court.
- Joel_Mckay 2y agoYou mean the rug pull on 40 years of legal precedent? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoJZu_EaDeM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoJZu_EaDeM People have to stop looking for the moral high ground in dealing with domestic threats. Two impeachment processes were just filed today... The US politics is so Bonkers... bag of popcorn ready =3
- nsxwolf 2y agoSounds to me like Loper Bright Enterprises was the little guy getting absolutely reamed by the government after NOAA out of nowhere decided to start charging them $700 per day per fishing vessel. Chevron Deference would have continued but the government simply couldn't help themselves.
- renewiltord 2y agoYeah, this is just another in a long list of "this is why we can't have nice things". It's not really that different from the Bay Area deciding that they'll give sheriffs the right to decide who gets a concealed carry warrant and then one of those sheriffs deciding that she'd prefer getting paid to give them out.
- theossuary 2y agoIt's funny because the supreme Court also provided an avenue for that to be done legally - https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scop...
- hindsightbias 2y agoSo Sheriffs could take gratuities to deny ccw permits... Maybe a patreon for each denial.
- renewiltord 2y agoHa, I think she retired before she could be prosecuted or anything. Should have stuck it out!
- persnicker 2y agoJust keep in mind that the Chevron case allowed the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the United States to literally throw out the US constitution and say that the US constitution does not apply to you or protect you and anyone on the border, because they interpreted the US constitution to mean anyone on US "soil" to mean: not literally on the US "soil", though only once you cross the border. Nice self-serving interpretation. Source: https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-... - second point above the fold. Chevron is an American tragedy. It's fixed and should be fixed forever.
- biofox 2y agoThis is the first credible defence of the decision I have read. Do you know of any other examples?
- cyberax 2y agoIt's not credible.
- pnw 2y agoThe Chevron decision was only from 1984. Many red and blue states had already determined it wasn't appropriate at the state supreme court level. This is a decent overview from last year. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/28/ending-chevron-deference-in-the-states/ https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/28/ending-chevron-deferenc...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- DiggyJohnson 2y agoThe comment to your reply seems like the opposite of a credible defense. Was it edited in the interim between this comment and your reply?
- akio 2y agoChevron allowed massive regulatory changes whenever a new administration took over. At a time of high political polarization, no one should be asking that we defer to the whatever the current executive branch’s interpretation of the law is. You may agree with the current President’s politics, but chances are you won’t agree with the next one’s. https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/chevron-deference-vs-steady-administration/ https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/chevron-deference-vs-steady-admi...
- alberth 2y agoTL;DR; Under Chevron, a court defers to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, as long as the judge finds the interpretation to be reasonable. If the court limits or upends the Chevron doctrine (which the SCOTUS did), the ruling would pull back the leeway that agencies have had in interpreting statutes. --- For example, now the FCC no longer has the power over topics like Net Neutrality ... that is now left up to the courts. --- The historical stance on this was, agencies should have authority over ambiguous statutes because they are Subject Matter Experts in the space (you can't expect a judge to be a SME on every possible topic).
- SoftTalker 2y agoOr stop passing vague, ambiguous, overly-general laws.
- alberth 2y agoThat sounds good, but doesn't work in practice. New technology advancements make once very well understood laws, now ambiguous. Take AI as an example. How many laws have been written over the past few decades that could not have predicted AI use cases or its application.
- SoftTalker 2y agoCongress could create a committee charged with developing an AI policy. That committee can include subject matter experts, and can recommend clear specific regulations. They can then draft legislation that codifies that into law. As opposed to just creating a new "Federal Department of AI" that has broad powers to regulate AI however its unelected administrators see fit.
- roflyear 2y agoThis is what congress does by creating these agencies that up until now relied on Chevron rather than a drawn out process of creating specific laws (so years can go by with dangerous loopholes etc).
- AcerbicZero 2y agoThere is no defense of bureaucratic overreach.
- Facemelters 2y agoNot a coincidence that, following a takeover of the judiciary by the right wing, they now aggrandize the power of the Court.
- topper-123 2y agoNot specific to the Chevron deference, but I’ve always felt that judicial interpretation should be conservative, i.e. legal rulings should aim to not change society without a previous law change by the parliament. This would mean that the power to change how society works should lie with the parliament, not the judiciary. I’m aware thus would also block some changes that I agree with, but longer term I think this would be much healthier for democracy.
- whoiscroberts 2y ago…with the parliament, not the judiciary[and now that it is overturned, certainly not with bureaucrats who run agencies].
- digging 2y agoLegislation is always the first-line rule maker, this is about deciding who is the second-line rule maker - the administrative state of experts and political appointees, or the judicial state of, well, political appointees.
- topper-123 2y agoYeah, I was not talking about this case in particular. For example, various international treaties are often very vaguely formulated, which has the concequence that practical law making gets done in the courts (which is too undemocratic). I would prefer the judiciary in such cases to e.g. rule that the parliment needs to make clearer rules and until that happens, the court adjourns the legal case. This would move both power and responsibility to the parliament from the courts, which IMO would be healtier for democracy long-term.
- Georgelemental 2y agoWhat if a previous judicial interpretation violated this rule, it is better to reverse the decision (changing society again) or to stick with it?
- rat87 2y ago
- admissionsguy 2y agoThe reactions are strange. The decision appears to have been the single biggest rollback of the parasitic state in modern times. It puts the people and the government on a more equal footing with respect to the law, which is something to celebrate. I will chalk it up to the Trump Derangement Syndrome.
- slaymaker1907 2y agoOne potential positive is that it may help foster actual cooperation between the parties when a new problem arises that really needs some solution not covered by existing law instead of just relying on the executive to fix things. Once you start cooperating on some things, it's much easier to cooperate on more difficult issues. Most politicians are not extremists who would rather see the US become a failed state than cooperate with their political opponents. It would be like a (mentally healthy) married couple choosing homelessness because they disagree over what color the walls should be.
- its_ethan 2y agoI'm really holding out that this is true. In a dream world, it'll up the ante to get people to vote in more reasonable ("quiet/silent majority" type) people willing to actually get stuff done.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- simpleblend 2y agoSafe assumption.
- brigadier132 2y agoOne half is that the other team did it so it has to be bad. The other half is that enlightened people that don't value democracy and think they represent the "greater good" want the power to circumvent such archaic processes like "passing laws".
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- losvedir 2y ago> The Chevron deference doctrine or just “Chevron deference” was limited to cases where a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue is implicit rather than explicit This is the first time I've heard this specific dimension about it. Am I correct in understanding that if the law explicitly delegates to an administrative agency, that's a different scenario? I've read all about how the Chevron defense keeps the government functioning because we don't want Congress to have to decide every little thing in the laws, and to let the experts in the agency figure out the details. But it sounds like if the law explicitly says "XYZ to be determined by Agency ABC" then that's not something covered by the Chevron defense? Have there been lawsuits against agencies in that case? If not, why not? And does that mean the answer going forward is for Congress to be explicit about what they're delegating and to whom? That doesn't seem so bad, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what it's saying here.
- arzig 2y agoIANAL, but my understanding is that chevron interacts weirdly with the administrative procedures act. So, one of the big problems with chevron deference is that when the laws says XYZ to be determined by agency ABC and agency ABC determines Q, but an election happens, the president gets up and makes a big populist speech, issues an executive order and now agency ABC determines R instead. This is a problem because under chevron + APA, the agency determination of both Q and R which may be contradictory both have the force of law and the courts were bound to simply defer to the interpretation. You have agency making rules which have the force of law but the "law" is changing without the authorizing statute having changed and the courts' hands were tied by chevron. This is especially problematic when the rulemaking has associated criminal penalties. Now, just because chevron deference no longer exists doesn't mean that agencies cannot make rules, but it does mean that if an agency makes a wild swing in rulemaking without a change in the underlying statute then its much easier to challenge that action. Ultimately, we want these things in the hands of the representative branch of the legislature anyway. One can dream anyway...
- ellisv 2y agoThe problem is when the law is vague regarding a particular issue. Look at Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1963 requires the EPA to set emission standards for "any air pollutant" from motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines "which in his judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." The main question of that case was whether CO2 and other greenhouse gases are an "air pollutant" that causes "air pollution". Unsurprisingly, the CAA didn't specify each and every "air pollutant", rather Congress implicitly left it to the EPA. So the problem was not whether Congress had explicitly delegated regulation to an administrative agency but whether the EPA was required by statute to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Going forward, deference to the administrative agency is not required. The judiciary can certainly still side with an administrative agency. However, the courts will have to play a larger role in addressing technical statutory questions. The courts have always been able to disregard agency expertise (as SCOTUS just did), this just signals a greater willingness to do so.
- nashashmi 2y agoChevron deference was abused to circumvent the inability of congress to make laws that were too politically divisive. Eventually sustainability regulations were enacted through these measures when this should have first been explicitly permitted.
- ChrisArchitect 2y agoRelated: Supreme Court overturns 40-year-old "Chevron deference" doctrine https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40820949 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40820949
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jorblumesea 2y agoKagan's dissent is pretty damning. Essentially breaks the way modern government works, long term. Imagine a corporation challenging the EPA's right to limit PFAS, because Congress didn't explicitly carve it out in the original legislation. Practically speaking, it also makes the courts the supreme lay of the land when it comes to regulations, since they will have the power to challenge or overrule basically anything and congress is perpetually gridlocked for a generation. In addition, they can reinterpret anything congress passes ex post facto as being too ambiguous. Some judge in Texas might allow a company to dump chemicals, because they are ignorant of chemistry or listened to the corporate experts trotted out to explain why forever chemicals are fine. None of these changes are for the good of the people, long term. https://newrepublic.com/post/183269/elena-kagan-supreme-court-chevron-ruling-dissent https://newrepublic.com/post/183269/elena-kagan-supreme-cour... https://www.courthousenews.com/after-scathing-kagan-dissent-experts-warn-of-fallout-from-chevron-overturn/ https://www.courthousenews.com/after-scathing-kagan-dissent-... You can read the entire passage here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rowls66 2y agoSeems to me that if Congress would prefer that any disputes arising from the implementation of their laws be handled by the admistrative agency charged with enforcing it, all they need to do is say so in the law. Not sure how the courts could get around that.
- falcolas 2y ago> Not sure how the courts could get around that. Like any other law, they rule it as unconstitutional. Appeal its way up to the SCOTUS, and they will ultimately decide if they want to keep the power or give it back to the regulatory agencies.
- vundercind 2y agoDifficulty: Congress almost never passes substantive laws anymore. No way you’re getting a with-teeth EPA law, for example, through a modern Congress until we’re back to smog clouds over our cities and burning rivers and creating new, large cancer districts and superfund sites. And that’ll have to go on for a while before it happens. Then, maybe. We’ve been coasting on good laws from the 70s and earlier, mostly, while weakening regulation has been eating our foundation like termites (especially Chicago-school-driven judicial rulings on how the executive is allowed to enforce anti-trust, in the late 70s, and later removal of media ownership consolidation rules). Now they (people who wish they could hurt people while making money and not be told to stop) can attack those good laws directly.
- HDThoreaun 2y agoIf only congress was capable of passing laws
- cooper_ganglia 2y agoIt's honestly very difficult for me to understand why some people don't prioritize the judiciary's constitutional role in interpreting laws and the separation of powers that prevent executive overreach. Sure, this change might lead to more regulatory lawsuits, and we can address that by hiring more judges or drafting clearer laws. I'd prefer judges interpret laws with the advice of regulatory agency experts, even if it results in the same decisions. The potential increase in government size is a small price to pay for upholding constitutional principles. In my opinion, the Chevron ruling is not only fundamentally unconstitutional, it is poison to this nation, and this recent decision rightly restores the balance of power.
- rootusrootus 2y ago> the judiciary's constitutional role in interpreting laws Their constitutional role is quite a lot more limited than their de facto role. Congress may ultimately decide to assert their dominance, which sounds good, except that Congress is already fully captured by special interests anyway.
- rat87 2y agoThis isn't about executive overreach. Congress delegated the power, the executive branch oversees implementation the courts step in but only if it's clear the executive branch departments have misinterpreted the law. This ruling is the thing that is the poison to our nation. It is born not only of extreme conservativism but also nihlism that doesn't care how many things are wrecked if there's less regulation for big businesses. It is extremely cynical ruling that has little relationship to the constitution. Congress has been broken at least since the 90s(thanks Gingrich) and the Chevron defense has helped keep the country working
- AftHurrahWinch 2y agoIn US law to establish standing, you have to demonstrate injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability based on the Article III limit requiring courts to address "cases" and "controversies." This makes us great at redressing harm, and terrible at preventing harm. A lot of modern technology is such an effective force multiplier that the process of establishing standing and having a hearing before a preliminary injunction can be catastrophic, far beyond what was possible when the Constitution was drafted. Under Chevron, judges deferred to reasonable regulatory interpretations. Now it's a slower, more adversarial process. I hope you're right and the answer is to just grow the government and judiciary.
- lawls 2y ago[flagged]
- rootusrootus 2y agoIt seems that way but history is littered with examples of unintended consequences. I strongly suspect this will not play out how the christian nationalists hope it will.
- lawls 2y agoI don't have enough faith in the everyday American to vote against fascism. They will either forget to vote or do not understand that they have been lied to and end up voting for fascism.
- Dig1t 2y agoThat sounds like a conspiracy theory. Source?
- Facemelters 2y agowell it's not surprising that the instant the right wing took full control of the judiciary, they dramatically expanded its power.
- falcolas 2y agohttps://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FUL... page 545 for their plan for the DOJ.
- Dig1t 2y agoThis is political propaganda created by the Democratic Party. Biden himself keeps tweeting it out trying to fearmonger people into voting for their side.
- 2y ago
- smitty1e 2y agoIt would be great to see the readers of this site step back a bit. Consider the growth of the Administrative State, which amounted to a shift away from elected representatives crafting laws to having those representatives essentially vote on requirements documents. Unelected bureaucrats then turn the legislation into regulations so that the operating system of the government can function. But since its regulation and not legislation, it's Constitutional. If you squint. The point is one of scalability. Whether one considers the Administrative State a great idea or not, it came about because it was needful. So, all of the MAGA Conservatives can do victory laps, but if the basic requirement to keep the ship of state on an even keel goes unmet, then stand by for the blowback. I'd like to see some genuine thought given to how to balance the requirements of modern life with the desire for accountability for decision-makers, which bureaucracy famously obviates. For starters, consider Federalism (Washington DC only manages interstate and international, not individual). A political architecture, like a software architecture, might be improved by such a layered approach, instead of the (substantially) Monolithic State of Washington D.C.