3 ms·

But isn't the overturning of Chevron itself an example of the Court ignoring the authorizations of Congress? Congress delegated the authority to agencies to mak

by sqeaky 2y ago

But isn't the overturning of Chevron itself an example of the Court ignoring the authorizations of Congress? Congress delegated the authority to agencies to make regulations.

pfdietz 2y ago
No, I don't believe so.
ethbr1 2y ago
> Congress delegated the authority to agencies to make regulations. It did and it didn't. As parent was saying, Congress generally created each executive agency through a specific authorizing act, that also contained what it should do and its powers. Chevron (or its overturning) has to do with what happens when that authorization was ambiguous. Previously (Chevron), courts had to defer to the agency. Now they don't. Neither of which changes what courts have to do when the authorization is not ambiguous. Which is a lot of times.
- tialaramex 2y ago
  "Which is a lot of times" You can always imagine an ambiguity into existence. Chevron deference meant that wasn't enough and now it is. Human natural languages are naturally ambiguous. This Supreme Court ruling encourages courts, especially Right-leaning courts to just declare that oops, this text was ambiguous and so even though it's obvious to any normal person that Congress did intend exactly the regulation at issue, a court can argue it isn't sure they meant that and so the regulations have no effect until Congress finds the time to spell it out to the court's satisfaction, which may be never. The bigger problem is that as judges find more and more tortured ways to fit their ideology onto the raw text this is further destroying trust in the justice system which erodes not just the republic, which presumably Republicans no longer give a shit about, but the United States of America itself, the country. Even an Autocrat needs that trust, the US isn't Monaco, it cannot be managed without a vast bureaucracy. What's notable about the present Supreme Court isn't that they're partisans, that's inevitable under the US system for decades at least. What's notable is that they're not very good judges. Scalia wasn't great but he was smarter than several of the newer justices which is at least something. And Thomas is a joke, if this man was on my magistrates bench I'd have him kicked out. When is the last time you saw a US Supreme Court decision which articulates a good principle of justice and uses that to explain the decision such that it seems in hindsight obvious and inevitable? There should be several of these each season, ideally the vast majority of decisions. Instead we get tortured logic and the sort of dubious attempts at reinterpreting somebody else's words by ignoring their plain meaning that would get you a poor grade in an undergraduate essay. This means more work for the justices, further over-burdening a system that is failing. Take Obergefell. The dissents are pretty stupid, but even the Kennedy decision is poor work, if this gets a passing grade in BA Law the lecturer is too generous. Yes, James Obergefell ultimately deserved at least what this decision gave him, but the decision can't bring itself to articulate a core principle to explain that. If the Supreme Court can't or won't take such a stance, why even have one?
- horsawlarway 2y ago
  I understand your take here, but I fail to see how this is really a rebuttal? Congress has the ability to change the authorizing act if they believe that an agency is acting incorrectly when authorization is ambiguous. If they do not do so - I would read that as congress intends the agency to act in the manner they are acting. The court is now saying that failure to act is not a decision in itself, and that the courts are now allowed to decide - That feels like a fairly blatant power grab. Why must congress be forced to continually act if the agency is making decisions it believes reasonable under the authorizations it granted? There will never be a law that lacks ambiguity - it's just not possible.
- sqeaky 2y ago
  This is ridiculous and completely the political factors and personal financial stakes of the justices involved. Chevron deference was in place for decades and congress steadily created more agencies and passed laws to restrict or add powers. If congress wanted Chevron deference gone, they had literal decades to have fixed it. This wasn't ambiguity. This was corruption.

by sqeaky 2y ago

But isn't the overturning of Chevron itself an example of the Court ignoring the authorizations of Congress? Congress delegated the authority to agencies to make regulations.

pfdietz 2y ago

No, I don't believe so.

ethbr1 2y ago

> Congress delegated the authority to agencies to make regulations. It did and it didn't. As parent was saying, Congress generally created each executive agency through a specific authorizing act, that also contained what it should do and its powers. Chevron (or its overturning) has to do with what happens when that authorization was ambiguous. Previously (Chevron), courts had to defer to the agency. Now they don't. Neither of which changes what courts have to do when the authorization is not ambiguous. Which is a lot of times.

tialaramex 2y ago
"Which is a lot of times" You can always imagine an ambiguity into existence. Chevron deference meant that wasn't enough and now it is. Human natural languages are naturally ambiguous. This Supreme Court ruling encourages courts, especially Right-leaning courts to just declare that oops, this text was ambiguous and so even though it's obvious to any normal person that Congress did intend exactly the regulation at issue, a court can argue it isn't sure they meant that and so the regulations have no effect until Congress finds the time to spell it out to the court's satisfaction, which may be never. The bigger problem is that as judges find more and more tortured ways to fit their ideology onto the raw text this is further destroying trust in the justice system which erodes not just the republic, which presumably Republicans no longer give a shit about, but the United States of America itself, the country. Even an Autocrat needs that trust, the US isn't Monaco, it cannot be managed without a vast bureaucracy. What's notable about the present Supreme Court isn't that they're partisans, that's inevitable under the US system for decades at least. What's notable is that they're not very good judges. Scalia wasn't great but he was smarter than several of the newer justices which is at least something. And Thomas is a joke, if this man was on my magistrates bench I'd have him kicked out. When is the last time you saw a US Supreme Court decision which articulates a good principle of justice and uses that to explain the decision such that it seems in hindsight obvious and inevitable? There should be several of these each season, ideally the vast majority of decisions. Instead we get tortured logic and the sort of dubious attempts at reinterpreting somebody else's words by ignoring their plain meaning that would get you a poor grade in an undergraduate essay. This means more work for the justices, further over-burdening a system that is failing. Take Obergefell. The dissents are pretty stupid, but even the Kennedy decision is poor work, if this gets a passing grade in BA Law the lecturer is too generous. Yes, James Obergefell ultimately deserved at least what this decision gave him, but the decision can't bring itself to articulate a core principle to explain that. If the Supreme Court can't or won't take such a stance, why even have one?
horsawlarway 2y ago
I understand your take here, but I fail to see how this is really a rebuttal? Congress has the ability to change the authorizing act if they believe that an agency is acting incorrectly when authorization is ambiguous. If they do not do so - I would read that as congress intends the agency to act in the manner they are acting. The court is now saying that failure to act is not a decision in itself, and that the courts are now allowed to decide - That feels like a fairly blatant power grab. Why must congress be forced to continually act if the agency is making decisions it believes reasonable under the authorizations it granted? There will never be a law that lacks ambiguity - it's just not possible.
sqeaky 2y ago
This is ridiculous and completely the political factors and personal financial stakes of the justices involved. Chevron deference was in place for decades and congress steadily created more agencies and passed laws to restrict or add powers. If congress wanted Chevron deference gone, they had literal decades to have fixed it. This wasn't ambiguity. This was corruption.