7 ms·

> Just 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 sa

> Just 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 No, it did't. The regulations were approved in 1953 and upheld in 1976 ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/ ), before the Chevron deference. > Chevron is an American tragedy. It's fixed and should be fixed forever. Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Without it, we'll get back into a morass of endless lawsuits that stop any improvement.

persnicker 2y ago
It was never allowed to be challenged post 1984. Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s. Before 1953 people didn't even need CPB. Your counterpoint is outrageous.
- ameister14 2y ago
  Chevron is from a decision in 1984, so how did it apply in 1976?
  - persnicker 2y ago
    Corrected, thank you.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Before 1953 people didn't even need CPB. Oh, and you are clearly clueless about CBP. Before 2003, its duties were done by the DOJ (INS), and USBP. USBP existed since 1924, INS since 1933.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > It was never allowed to be challenged post 1976. And? How is Chevron deference (from 1984) is to blame? The case was decided on Constitutional grounds, without any deference needed. > Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s. I'd have been surprised if DOJ started doing cellphone searches in 1953. > Your counterpoint is outrageous. You failed to make your point about the border searches. They are not connected to Chevron deference in any way.
lolinder 2y ago
> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Without it, we'll get back into a morass of endless lawsuits that stop any improvement. I'll see you in a few years with the outcome of this prediction, but I'm personally not a big believer in single pillars that hold up entire 350-million person systems. It tends to take quite a few pillars falling out to lead to the kind of chaos you're predicting, even saying that Chevron was a pillar and not just a particular way of doing things.
- JadeNB 2y ago
  > It tends to take quite a few pillars falling out to lead to the kind of chaos you're predicting, even saying that Chevron was a pillar and not just a particular way of doing things. One can say the same of any individual change, but it is hard to look back at recent, oh, I don't know, let's say decades, and to think that they have not represented, for better and for worse, fundamental changes in norms and modes of existence, in the US and worldwide.
- rtkwe 2y ago
  Now instead we will have judges deciding between industry paid experts and the regulators over every single regulation like how much poison it's acceptable to pump into water supplies. People with no background in evaluating studies or the subjects at hand are being given the reigns to arbitrate between businesses and the public over extremely technical issues.
  - ryathal 2y ago
    This is explicitly not what this ruling means. The Judicial branch will rule is an agency has the power to regulate a limit for X in the water. The limit would still be set by an agency.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    And why not? They have background in interpreting the law and in listening to and evaluating expert testimony. Why is direct rule by short-lived experts appointed by an executive who cycles out the rules every four years better than rule by legislation and the interpretation thereof by judges as informed by experts?
LastTrain 2y ago
You are both being overly dramatic about this. The system will continue to function and adjustments will be made for the new legal reality.
- falcolas 2y ago
  When any regulation (SCOTUS also removed the statutes of limitations for "new" companies) able to be challenged by a lawsuit in a court, and there are hundreds of thousands of regulations in place, how could the courts keep up? They're somewhat understaffed as it is.
matrix87 2y ago
> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. I mean, arguably it worked better during the years before the decision Not to say that I agree with the recent supreme court decision, but eventually the dust will settle
- cyberax 2y ago
  > I mean, arguably it worked better during the years before the decision Yeah. Some rivers caught fire here and there, but otherwise it had been OK.
pdonis 2y ago
> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Depends on your definition of "works". It is true that many agencies would find it much harder to fulfill their current functions. But many of those current functions are not things that should be done anyway, at least not by the government. Also, the entire apparatus of the administrative state, with executive branch agencies issuing regulations that have the force of law, is arguably unconstitutional: Article I of the Constitutions say that all legislative power shall be vested in Congress, and does not allow Congress to delegate it. The justification given by the government, and accepted by the Supreme Court in Hampton Co. v. United States, was that it is ok for Congress to delegate lawmaking to executive branch agencies as long as it gives them an "intelligible principle" to guide them. That is one of many examples of Supreme Court decisions that have no recognizable basis in the Constitution.
- cyberax 2y ago
  The thing is, what you want is WORSE than the current state. The rule-making process is extremely heavy-weight and slow. On purpose, so the public can comment and challenge the rules at multiple checkpoints. And for most of the routine regular rules (not something "big" like Net Neutrality), the comments are treated seriously. So now imagine that EVERYTHING has to go through the Congress. Congresscritters don't have expertise or time to evaluate and argue each individual point of regulations. So they'll be bundled into omnibus bills, prepared by shady lobbyist groups. There will be no way for you to influence them, especially if your local Congresscritter is not on the relevant committee. And again, even with Chevron deference, the Congress can easily override any regulation by passing a law.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > what you want is WORSE than the current state. No, it isn't, because if Congress is forced to make laws itself, like the Constitution says, it will have to drastically scale back the scope of the laws it makes so it is manageable, and that is a good thing. We have far too many laws as it is. The law needs to be drastically scaled back so it only does what it's supposed to, and is not used, as it is now, as an instrument of ideology and failed social policy.
_heimdall 2y ago
What makes you so confident that were always going to be better off allowing the executive branch to functionally define law? The Chevron deference has always seemed to me to be a workaround when the balance of powers is inconvenient. Congress can avoid debating and voting on a bill and the executive branch gets to effectively write law without legislating it through an elected congress.
skissane 2y ago
> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. A judicial doctrine concocted by conservatives in 1984 so that the Reagan administration could let an oil company pollute more is “the reason the US works at all”? A more liberal Supreme Court might have sided with the environmentalists and upheld the decision below (written by none other than the notorious RBG-she hadn’t been elevated to the Supreme Court yet). It’s a good thing that didn’t happen, because then the US would have stopped working
dragonwriter 2y ago
> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. That's not really true; the US--including a generally modern administrative state--worked "at all" when Skidmore deference (which existed before Chevron and applied with wider scope) was the only form of deference to administrative agencies required by Supreme Court preference. Leaving aside the question of whether it is legally correct, overturning Chevron is not apocalyptic, and it is also relatively easily reversible, since it was not a decision about the Constitutional separation of powers but the interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act. It can be, to the extent necessary, undone by statute, either specific grants to specific agencies regarding specific laws or broadly by amending or superceding the relevant provisions of the APA. Loper Bright moves more power to the (lower, obviously, as the Supreme Court could always do what it did there) courts than they had under Chevron, and it will increase uncertainty, litigation risk, and the degree to which -- as a direct consequence -- wealthy interests are inherently favored by the cost of resolving disputes in a wide range of areas until and unless legislative changes are made. But it isn't apocalyptic on its own. (Obviously, it increases the cost of Congressional dysfunction, though, which has been a serious problem recently.)

persnicker 2y ago

It was never allowed to be challenged post 1984. Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s. Before 1953 people didn't even need CPB. Your counterpoint is outrageous.

ameister14 2y ago
Chevron is from a decision in 1984, so how did it apply in 1976?
- persnicker 2y ago
  Corrected, thank you.
cyberax 2y ago
> Before 1953 people didn't even need CPB. Oh, and you are clearly clueless about CBP. Before 2003, its duties were done by the DOJ (INS), and USBP. USBP existed since 1924, INS since 1933.
cyberax 2y ago
> It was never allowed to be challenged post 1976. And? How is Chevron deference (from 1984) is to blame? The case was decided on Constitutional grounds, without any deference needed. > Searching cellphones and seizures only started in the 2000s. I'd have been surprised if DOJ started doing cellphone searches in 1953. > Your counterpoint is outrageous. You failed to make your point about the border searches. They are not connected to Chevron deference in any way.

lolinder 2y ago

> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Without it, we'll get back into a morass of endless lawsuits that stop any improvement. I'll see you in a few years with the outcome of this prediction, but I'm personally not a big believer in single pillars that hold up entire 350-million person systems. It tends to take quite a few pillars falling out to lead to the kind of chaos you're predicting, even saying that Chevron was a pillar and not just a particular way of doing things.

JadeNB 2y ago
> It tends to take quite a few pillars falling out to lead to the kind of chaos you're predicting, even saying that Chevron was a pillar and not just a particular way of doing things. One can say the same of any individual change, but it is hard to look back at recent, oh, I don't know, let's say decades, and to think that they have not represented, for better and for worse, fundamental changes in norms and modes of existence, in the US and worldwide.
rtkwe 2y ago
Now instead we will have judges deciding between industry paid experts and the regulators over every single regulation like how much poison it's acceptable to pump into water supplies. People with no background in evaluating studies or the subjects at hand are being given the reigns to arbitrate between businesses and the public over extremely technical issues.
- ryathal 2y ago
  This is explicitly not what this ruling means. The Judicial branch will rule is an agency has the power to regulate a limit for X in the water. The limit would still be set by an agency.
- lolinder 2y ago
  And why not? They have background in interpreting the law and in listening to and evaluating expert testimony. Why is direct rule by short-lived experts appointed by an executive who cycles out the rules every four years better than rule by legislation and the interpretation thereof by judges as informed by experts?

LastTrain 2y ago

You are both being overly dramatic about this. The system will continue to function and adjustments will be made for the new legal reality.

falcolas 2y ago
When any regulation (SCOTUS also removed the statutes of limitations for "new" companies) able to be challenged by a lawsuit in a court, and there are hundreds of thousands of regulations in place, how could the courts keep up? They're somewhat understaffed as it is.

matrix87 2y ago

> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. I mean, arguably it worked better during the years before the decision Not to say that I agree with the recent supreme court decision, but eventually the dust will settle

cyberax 2y ago
> I mean, arguably it worked better during the years before the decision Yeah. Some rivers caught fire here and there, but otherwise it had been OK.

pdonis 2y ago

> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. Depends on your definition of "works". It is true that many agencies would find it much harder to fulfill their current functions. But many of those current functions are not things that should be done anyway, at least not by the government. Also, the entire apparatus of the administrative state, with executive branch agencies issuing regulations that have the force of law, is arguably unconstitutional: Article I of the Constitutions say that all legislative power shall be vested in Congress, and does not allow Congress to delegate it. The justification given by the government, and accepted by the Supreme Court in Hampton Co. v. United States, was that it is ok for Congress to delegate lawmaking to executive branch agencies as long as it gives them an "intelligible principle" to guide them. That is one of many examples of Supreme Court decisions that have no recognizable basis in the Constitution.

cyberax 2y ago
The thing is, what you want is WORSE than the current state. The rule-making process is extremely heavy-weight and slow. On purpose, so the public can comment and challenge the rules at multiple checkpoints. And for most of the routine regular rules (not something "big" like Net Neutrality), the comments are treated seriously. So now imagine that EVERYTHING has to go through the Congress. Congresscritters don't have expertise or time to evaluate and argue each individual point of regulations. So they'll be bundled into omnibus bills, prepared by shady lobbyist groups. There will be no way for you to influence them, especially if your local Congresscritter is not on the relevant committee. And again, even with Chevron deference, the Congress can easily override any regulation by passing a law.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > what you want is WORSE than the current state. No, it isn't, because if Congress is forced to make laws itself, like the Constitution says, it will have to drastically scale back the scope of the laws it makes so it is manageable, and that is a good thing. We have far too many laws as it is. The law needs to be drastically scaled back so it only does what it's supposed to, and is not used, as it is now, as an instrument of ideology and failed social policy.

_heimdall 2y ago

What makes you so confident that were always going to be better off allowing the executive branch to functionally define law? The Chevron deference has always seemed to me to be a workaround when the balance of powers is inconvenient. Congress can avoid debating and voting on a bill and the executive branch gets to effectively write law without legislating it through an elected congress.

skissane 2y ago

> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. A judicial doctrine concocted by conservatives in 1984 so that the Reagan administration could let an oil company pollute more is “the reason the US works at all”? A more liberal Supreme Court might have sided with the environmentalists and upheld the decision below (written by none other than the notorious RBG-she hadn’t been elevated to the Supreme Court yet). It’s a good thing that didn’t happen, because then the US would have stopped working

dragonwriter 2y ago

> Chevron deference is the reason the US works at all. That's not really true; the US--including a generally modern administrative state--worked "at all" when Skidmore deference (which existed before Chevron and applied with wider scope) was the only form of deference to administrative agencies required by Supreme Court preference. Leaving aside the question of whether it is legally correct, overturning Chevron is not apocalyptic, and it is also relatively easily reversible, since it was not a decision about the Constitutional separation of powers but the interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Act. It can be, to the extent necessary, undone by statute, either specific grants to specific agencies regarding specific laws or broadly by amending or superceding the relevant provisions of the APA. Loper Bright moves more power to the (lower, obviously, as the Supreme Court could always do what it did there) courts than they had under Chevron, and it will increase uncertainty, litigation risk, and the degree to which -- as a direct consequence -- wealthy interests are inherently favored by the cost of resolving disputes in a wide range of areas until and unless legislative changes are made. But it isn't apocalyptic on its own. (Obviously, it increases the cost of Congressional dysfunction, though, which has been a serious problem recently.)