5 ms·

This is the first credible defence of the decision I have read. Do you know of any other examples?

by biofox 2y ago

cyberax 2y ago
It's not credible.
pnw 2y ago
The 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 ago
The 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 ago
Chevron 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...
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  That's more credible than the original point persnicker tried. And it's especially appropriate given the stated intention of the GOP to usher in an era where the entire bureaucracy of the federal government shifts to match the political ideology of the newly elected president. If that comes to pass, it will be an amazing back-and-forth switch every few years. Institutional inertia seems preferable in comparison.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > stated intention Namely, Republican efforts to dramatically increase the scope of government employees that a president can appoint and fire on a whim. Basically a move towards the "spoils system" of rewarding political allies and donors with powerful or lucrative jobs. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/faq-the-conservative-attack-on-the-merit-based-civil-service/ https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/faq-the-cons...
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      It's fascinating to read the platform; there is the unspoken assumption that they will be installing all of these partisan bureaucrats that can keep on pushing their ideology even when their guy isn't president. As if it won't just be that each incoming president instantly fires every last one of them and then spends their entire term trying to fill those positions. Perhaps paralysis IS the point.
- falcolas 2y ago
  It's not as if judges are any more or less political. They're also not elected in most cases. It's pretty easy for a company to pick a court district which will be favorable to them, regardless of the experts brought in.
kogus 2y ago
George Will has an excellent article that defends the decision https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-court-progressive-executive-branch/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-c... And a slightly older article (before the decision) hoping that it would turn out the way that it did: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-deference-supreme-court-case/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-d...

This is the first credible defence of the decision I have read. Do you know of any other examples?

by biofox 2y ago

This is the first credible defence of the decision I have read. Do you know of any other examples?

cyberax 2y ago

It's not credible.

pnw 2y ago

The 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 ago

The 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 ago

Chevron 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...

rootusrootus 2y ago
That's more credible than the original point persnicker tried. And it's especially appropriate given the stated intention of the GOP to usher in an era where the entire bureaucracy of the federal government shifts to match the political ideology of the newly elected president. If that comes to pass, it will be an amazing back-and-forth switch every few years. Institutional inertia seems preferable in comparison.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > stated intention Namely, Republican efforts to dramatically increase the scope of government employees that a president can appoint and fire on a whim. Basically a move towards the "spoils system" of rewarding political allies and donors with powerful or lucrative jobs. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/faq-the-conservative-attack-on-the-merit-based-civil-service/ https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/faq-the-cons...
  - rootusrootus 2y ago
    It's fascinating to read the platform; there is the unspoken assumption that they will be installing all of these partisan bureaucrats that can keep on pushing their ideology even when their guy isn't president. As if it won't just be that each incoming president instantly fires every last one of them and then spends their entire term trying to fill those positions. Perhaps paralysis IS the point.
falcolas 2y ago
It's not as if judges are any more or less political. They're also not elected in most cases. It's pretty easy for a company to pick a court district which will be favorable to them, regardless of the experts brought in.

kogus 2y ago

George Will has an excellent article that defends the decision https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-court-progressive-executive-branch/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-c... And a slightly older article (before the decision) hoping that it would turn out the way that it did: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-deference-supreme-court-case/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-d...