3 ms·

Yes, I agree, having policy like that switch so wildly from government to government causes problems. It is a problem. But it's a problem for Congress to solve,

Yes, I agree, having policy like that switch so wildly from government to government causes problems. It is a problem. But it's a problem for Congress to solve, not the Supreme Court. Most if not all other developed nations have some equivalent to Chevron because the Courts are there to resolve issues of law, not of policy. You shouldn't want the Courts to interfere with policy just because you don't like it, or how it changes. Lobby your Senators and Representatives, not your Judges.

kelnos 2y ago
Half of Congress doesn't want to solve any of these problems though. They prefer a deadlocked federal government that can't get anything done.
- Defletter 2y ago
  Sure, but Congress being dysfunctional does not give licence to the Supreme Court to do whatever it wants.
  - deathlight 2y ago
    Why not?
    - Defletter 2y ago
      Because while the post-war Confederation was anaemic, leading to the Founders adopting a new constitution that would give the federal government more power, it was only enough power as was deemed necessary at the time. For example, Congress must name the powers upon which it is acting. It may require nosediving down a rabbit hole of citations to other laws, but at the end of that trail is a reference to an enumerated power within the Constitution. Congress may be dysfunctional, but that doesn’t magically enumerate more powers to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court must act within its remit. And as I mentioned in another thread, the federal judiciary is the least defined branch of the three, which given the enumerated nature of the Constitution should mean the federal judiciary should be the most restrained. Except that the Supreme Court has arguably become the most powerful branch due to their self-proclaimed stewardship of the Constitution that neither of the other branches can check or balance.
tpmoney 2y ago
I agree that it's a problem for congress to solve. But I disagree that the court is resolving an issue of policy. If policy carries penalties and the ability of the government to punish you, then it is inherently a matter of law, because the government is inherently limited by the constitution only to the powers enumerated to it. And likewise, the powers of the executive branch to make policy is limited to the scope to which congress has (by law) granted them the power to make that policy. If the law isn't clear whether a given policy is within the scope of authority granted by congress, determining whether or not it is within the scope is an issue of law.
- Defletter 2y ago
  Sure, but Chevron never was blind deference: it was a precedent of judicial restraint, recognising that the democratically elected legislature had delegated authority via statute to the democratically elected executive. But that never stopped the Courts from making decisions on matters of law. Striking down a regulation because it violated the constitution was perfectly okay under Chevron. What's happened is that the Supreme Court is citing a precedent that gave itself extra-constitutional powers to declare things unconstitutional, to permanently wedge itself between the executive and legislative. It's no longer a co-equal branch; a check and balance. It's now a veto. The fact the Supreme Court is behaving this way is very concerning and fundamentally undermines its legitimacy.
  - hnfong 2y ago
    You've got it wrong. The Chevron rule applies to situations where the government/executive branch interprets the laws (not constitution) passed by Congress. The rule says nothing about regulations being unconstitutional, and says nothing about striking down laws or regulations because they are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court recently reversed the Chevron decision, which, obviously could not be "extra-constitutional" in itself -- if you are right that Chevron was a precedent of judicial restraint, then reversing the restraint just means that at worst the SC is (ab)using its constitutional powers "without restraint" to interpret laws, but it isn't assigning itself "extra-constitutional" powers, and the reversal of the Chevron rule definitely isn't related to declaring things unconstitutional. Again, it's about declaring that the executive branch misinterpreted laws passed by Congress. I get that people are upset that the un-elected Supreme Court is overriding decisions made by democratically elected institutions, but constitutional law (not quite related here) and administrative law (which is what the Chevron rule was about) can be nuanced and there can be implications that aren't obvious to lay people. The political-affinity of such decisions also tend to cloud judgement.

kelnos 2y ago

Half of Congress doesn't want to solve any of these problems though. They prefer a deadlocked federal government that can't get anything done.

Defletter 2y ago
Sure, but Congress being dysfunctional does not give licence to the Supreme Court to do whatever it wants.
- deathlight 2y ago
  Why not?
  - Defletter 2y ago
    Because while the post-war Confederation was anaemic, leading to the Founders adopting a new constitution that would give the federal government more power, it was only enough power as was deemed necessary at the time. For example, Congress must name the powers upon which it is acting. It may require nosediving down a rabbit hole of citations to other laws, but at the end of that trail is a reference to an enumerated power within the Constitution. Congress may be dysfunctional, but that doesn’t magically enumerate more powers to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court must act within its remit. And as I mentioned in another thread, the federal judiciary is the least defined branch of the three, which given the enumerated nature of the Constitution should mean the federal judiciary should be the most restrained. Except that the Supreme Court has arguably become the most powerful branch due to their self-proclaimed stewardship of the Constitution that neither of the other branches can check or balance.

tpmoney 2y ago

I agree that it's a problem for congress to solve. But I disagree that the court is resolving an issue of policy. If policy carries penalties and the ability of the government to punish you, then it is inherently a matter of law, because the government is inherently limited by the constitution only to the powers enumerated to it. And likewise, the powers of the executive branch to make policy is limited to the scope to which congress has (by law) granted them the power to make that policy. If the law isn't clear whether a given policy is within the scope of authority granted by congress, determining whether or not it is within the scope is an issue of law.

Defletter 2y ago
Sure, but Chevron never was blind deference: it was a precedent of judicial restraint, recognising that the democratically elected legislature had delegated authority via statute to the democratically elected executive. But that never stopped the Courts from making decisions on matters of law. Striking down a regulation because it violated the constitution was perfectly okay under Chevron. What's happened is that the Supreme Court is citing a precedent that gave itself extra-constitutional powers to declare things unconstitutional, to permanently wedge itself between the executive and legislative. It's no longer a co-equal branch; a check and balance. It's now a veto. The fact the Supreme Court is behaving this way is very concerning and fundamentally undermines its legitimacy.
- hnfong 2y ago
  You've got it wrong. The Chevron rule applies to situations where the government/executive branch interprets the laws (not constitution) passed by Congress. The rule says nothing about regulations being unconstitutional, and says nothing about striking down laws or regulations because they are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court recently reversed the Chevron decision, which, obviously could not be "extra-constitutional" in itself -- if you are right that Chevron was a precedent of judicial restraint, then reversing the restraint just means that at worst the SC is (ab)using its constitutional powers "without restraint" to interpret laws, but it isn't assigning itself "extra-constitutional" powers, and the reversal of the Chevron rule definitely isn't related to declaring things unconstitutional. Again, it's about declaring that the executive branch misinterpreted laws passed by Congress. I get that people are upset that the un-elected Supreme Court is overriding decisions made by democratically elected institutions, but constitutional law (not quite related here) and administrative law (which is what the Chevron rule was about) can be nuanced and there can be implications that aren't obvious to lay people. The political-affinity of such decisions also tend to cloud judgement.