3 ms·

> 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

> 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?
  - newzisforsukas 2y ago
    Won't it lead to wildly different environmental laws in different states? One state can pump waste it considers safe into a river that is shared with another state who considers that waste harmful? Factories on borders of states can pollute the air in ways they do not agree upon, etc?
    - lolinder 2y ago
      In the short term maybe. The whole point is that Congress should actually write the laws they want implemented instead of writing the politically expedient extremely vague thing and just hoping we don't end up with the law changing every four years with the administration.
      - falcolas 2y ago
        So how do you get congress to write thousands of such laws yearly which will properly cover every potential outcome for decades? Our current congress barely passed 27 laws last year.
        pdonis 2y ago
        > how do you get congress to write thousands of such laws yearly which will properly cover every potential outcome for decades? You don't. You force Congress to obey the Constitution, and if that means the scope of the law has to be drastically scaled back so that Congress can manage it the way the Constitution says it's supposed to, good. We have far too many nanny state laws anyway that do much more harm than good.
        falcolas 2y ago
        This might work if we were still living in the 1700's, where companies were held in check by the communities they served. Today, they're happy to do the bare minimum required (required today, not in the world you're advocating for) to avoid poisoning the air, water, and their customers.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Nothing stops Congress from included in law that the executive branch agency specifically has the authority required to define and enforce specific metrics. The problem Chevron crested was the situation where congress effectively just approves an agency with broad powers to protect the environment, and from there the EPA does basically whatever they want with little to no accountability. Neither extreme is ideal. What we should really have is congress passing laws that specify scope of authority and agencies that have been granted enough leeway to do the job effectively without having the power to effectively create law completely outside the balance of powers.
- beej71 2y ago
  They can't be bribed, luckily. They can only be given gifts in thanks for past decisions.
dotnet00 2y ago
This is, after all, the same forum that predicted the imminent offline-ing of Twitter within a week of the layoffs ~2 years ago, and before that, the lack of federal net neutrality was supposed to be the end of decent internet access.
cyberax 2y ago
> 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. Oh, don't worry. Republicans are undermining the other pillars. The judicial system is already strained, and if Trump wins, it'll collapse completely. And unfortunately, the effects won't be visible immediately. It'll be like the US healthcare system: steadily growing more and more expensive, decade after decade, due to systemic issues.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Just a reminder that as far as Republicans are concerned it's the Democrats who are undermining the pillars that hold up our society. When everyone has a completely different list of those pillars I tend to assume that the system is actually quite resilient.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > the system is actually quite resilient "Resilient" in the sense of keeping itself going, and the politicians who benefit from it in office, yes. That doesn't mean the government is actually doing a good job at what it's supposed to be doing according to the Constitution. We the people, on the other hand, I think are indeed much more resilient than the "elites" give us credit for being.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    The pillar in question - the judiciary - will be hit pretty hard by the two-hit-combo of the removal of the statue of limitations for challenging regulations, and courts having the burden of going through an entire trial instead of a quick hearing. Granted, it's not the judiciary who will really suffer, it's the people who use the judiciary as their wait time skyrockets. The pillar might not fall, but people are probably going to fall off of it.
  - malcolmgreaves 2y ago
    Not all perspectives are equal. Do you consider a flat earther's perspective to be equal to a scientist's?
rat87 2y ago
It wouldn't be a single pillar if Congress functioned but they haven't at least since the 90s and there's little chance of that changing. It will be a huge mess.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Messes tend to beget solutions. My personal theory is it gets messy and then we fix Congress because the bandaid is finally gone.
  - newzisforsukas 2y ago
    > fix Congress We will have to fix the judiciary as well, as they can just undo anything the legislative or executive does through judicial review and activist interpretation. There are no repercussions for doing so, as there are lifetime appointments.

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?
- newzisforsukas 2y ago
  Won't it lead to wildly different environmental laws in different states? One state can pump waste it considers safe into a river that is shared with another state who considers that waste harmful? Factories on borders of states can pollute the air in ways they do not agree upon, etc?
  - lolinder 2y ago
    In the short term maybe. The whole point is that Congress should actually write the laws they want implemented instead of writing the politically expedient extremely vague thing and just hoping we don't end up with the law changing every four years with the administration.
    - falcolas 2y ago
      So how do you get congress to write thousands of such laws yearly which will properly cover every potential outcome for decades? Our current congress barely passed 27 laws last year.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > how do you get congress to write thousands of such laws yearly which will properly cover every potential outcome for decades? You don't. You force Congress to obey the Constitution, and if that means the scope of the law has to be drastically scaled back so that Congress can manage it the way the Constitution says it's supposed to, good. We have far too many nanny state laws anyway that do much more harm than good.
        falcolas 2y ago
        This might work if we were still living in the 1700's, where companies were held in check by the communities they served. Today, they're happy to do the bare minimum required (required today, not in the world you're advocating for) to avoid poisoning the air, water, and their customers.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
_heimdall 2y ago
Nothing stops Congress from included in law that the executive branch agency specifically has the authority required to define and enforce specific metrics. The problem Chevron crested was the situation where congress effectively just approves an agency with broad powers to protect the environment, and from there the EPA does basically whatever they want with little to no accountability. Neither extreme is ideal. What we should really have is congress passing laws that specify scope of authority and agencies that have been granted enough leeway to do the job effectively without having the power to effectively create law completely outside the balance of powers.
beej71 2y ago
They can't be bribed, luckily. They can only be given gifts in thanks for past decisions.

dotnet00 2y ago

This is, after all, the same forum that predicted the imminent offline-ing of Twitter within a week of the layoffs ~2 years ago, and before that, the lack of federal net neutrality was supposed to be the end of decent internet access.

cyberax 2y ago

> 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. Oh, don't worry. Republicans are undermining the other pillars. The judicial system is already strained, and if Trump wins, it'll collapse completely. And unfortunately, the effects won't be visible immediately. It'll be like the US healthcare system: steadily growing more and more expensive, decade after decade, due to systemic issues.

lolinder 2y ago
Just a reminder that as far as Republicans are concerned it's the Democrats who are undermining the pillars that hold up our society. When everyone has a completely different list of those pillars I tend to assume that the system is actually quite resilient.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > the system is actually quite resilient "Resilient" in the sense of keeping itself going, and the politicians who benefit from it in office, yes. That doesn't mean the government is actually doing a good job at what it's supposed to be doing according to the Constitution. We the people, on the other hand, I think are indeed much more resilient than the "elites" give us credit for being.
- falcolas 2y ago
  The pillar in question - the judiciary - will be hit pretty hard by the two-hit-combo of the removal of the statue of limitations for challenging regulations, and courts having the burden of going through an entire trial instead of a quick hearing. Granted, it's not the judiciary who will really suffer, it's the people who use the judiciary as their wait time skyrockets. The pillar might not fall, but people are probably going to fall off of it.
- malcolmgreaves 2y ago
  Not all perspectives are equal. Do you consider a flat earther's perspective to be equal to a scientist's?

rat87 2y ago

It wouldn't be a single pillar if Congress functioned but they haven't at least since the 90s and there's little chance of that changing. It will be a huge mess.

lolinder 2y ago
Messes tend to beget solutions. My personal theory is it gets messy and then we fix Congress because the bandaid is finally gone.
- newzisforsukas 2y ago
  > fix Congress We will have to fix the judiciary as well, as they can just undo anything the legislative or executive does through judicial review and activist interpretation. There are no repercussions for doing so, as there are lifetime appointments.