5 ms·

We will soon see what a huge and harmful deal the recent Chevron ruling is. The Supreme Court needs to be gutted.

dbcurtis 2y ago
Ummm… I assume you are complaining about the Loper Bright decision that ended “Chevron deferrence”, correct? You do realize that the Chevron decision was to give Dick Cheney his way on environmental questions, yes? Loper Bright says that regulators can’t change rules on a whim as they go along, and ignore/exceed congressional authority. What part of that do you have a problem with?
- xp84 2y ago
  I presume the GP is frustrated by Congress's inability to do anything, and at this moment considers "Just trust the executive branch to be acting in good faith" as an acceptable solution. I suppose they probably way overestimate the odds that we won't have a brand new executive branch with wildly different priorities and definition of reality in 5 months.
- skhunted 2y ago
  For 40 years or so laws granting regulatory authority to federal agencies were written with the understanding that Chevron Deference was the law of the land. Now those laws grating regulatory authority are going to be considered too vague. What will happen is that regulatory agencies will be thwarted in their duty to protect the public. Where the court is headed is that they will require a level of specificity in writing laws that grant regulatory authority that is impractical. Read what the dissenting opinions were and see where they think things are headed.
  - dbcurtis 2y ago
    I think the reality is that regulations will become more “sticky”. There will be a motivation to get it “right” the first time. Overall, I am happy to see an end to capricious reinterpretation with every change of administration. I don’t expect that we will see more specific legislation.
    - skhunted 2y ago
      There wasn’t a capricious change with every administration. You can point to isolated examples but not some over arching, wide ranging scheme. Your view about it being a good thing that Chevron is gone will not age well. You will be like the Texas ranchers that vote Republican and complain about oil companies polluting their water.
jhawk28 2y ago
Chevron has been zombie precedent for years. Do you really want the interpretation of administrative law changing every four years? This is just another example of the Supreme Court telling Congress to do their job which is where the political focus should be. If you want PFAS to be cleaned up, then get your congressperson to pass a law to have the executive branch do it. It is going to be much more effective in the long run.
- lukeschlather 2y ago
  Do you really want review of novel harmful chemicals to require an act of Congress to stop? PFAS are kind of iffy, the science is very mixed and it makes sense that there's going to be some flip-flopping depending on the administration. But like if there were some novel substance like DDT with similar toxcicity, that shouldn't require Congress to step in and say "no you can't put this in the water supply." Seems totally reasonable that the law should simply specify what effects require regulation and leave it to the administrators to determine which substances have which effects.
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    Congress doesn't need to pass a law per chemical, they need to firmly and clearly pass a law to follow up with what they want that bar for review to be in a way the Supreme Court is left without a doubt of what the existing laws meant to say. The consequences of reversing Chevron definitely seem dire to me but the court's majority opinion of why they did is also pretty reasonable.
    - redserk 2y ago
      I'd suggest you consider reading the laws that Congress has passed to create agencies. Congress already does this. Congress does not simply write "This bill establishes the Department of Slinky Tossing" and lets the Executive define, without any restriction, what this agency should do. Congress would at least define this agency as responsible for launching Slinkies in a manner that is at least partially airborne for some of it's trajectory. Now here's where things get tricky, Congress must write in immutable words that must withstand decades of scrutiny on their definition. Let's say "airborne" was used because they did not want this agency merely cradling Slinkies into the ocean, nor did Congress want the Slinkies to remain in boxes. So in a few years of tossing Slinkies around on earth, this "Department of Slinky Tossing" partners with NASA to throw Slinkies around on Mars. A new opportunity arises for the true linguo-contrarian looking for a gladitorial match entrenched in establishing meaning: Congress used the term "airborne". Airborne requires an object being in air. But how does one define "air"? Did Congress intend for air to refer to the atmosphere on Earth? The gaseous atmosphere around any planet? And really, what is a planet? Could this definition of "air" be restricted to gaseous mixtures consumable by humans? Who knows! Now we must defer to a court to decide if the breathability of air impacts the definition of the term "airborne", and if the "Department of Slinky Tossing" is allowed to toss Slinkies on Mars simply because "airborne" has been ambiguously defined in both common usage and law. Unfortunately, the Department of Slinky Tossing is unable to defend itself by claiming that Congress continued to fund their wiggly experiments, which to the agency, suggests the agency was still within permissible bounds. Congress' appropriations process ensures there is an opportunity every year to refuse the "Department of Slinky Tossing"'s space aspirations if inter-planetary slinky tossing is a leap too far. The Court seems to disapprove of the notion that the appropriations process is Congress allowing an agency to continue to operate as it's been running. Ultimately, I think this ruling simply cements that language-pedants ought to spend their energy finding a fufilling hobby.
Dig1t 2y ago
I don't know what gutting the supreme court actually means, but this is incentive for Congress to work together and actually write laws instead of shunting this responsibility to agencies whos rules change every 4 years.
zamadatix 2y ago
Another thing this court has highlighted is we shouldn't rest on specific legal interpretations when big and important ambiguities are raised. Whether it's the interpretation of the Constitution as protecting abortion in Roe v. Wade, whether or not the 14th amendment does or does not allow factoring race into college admissions via affirmative action in Grutter v. Bollinger, when courts must defer to agency interpretation of a law as found in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., or other such important decisions it's not something we should just leave as settled via current interpretation rather something we should seek to reinforce via updates to the law. That such important things make it to the Supreme Court to decide interpretation should be hint it may not be as clear cut as we'd like to have believed. The biggest factor in limiting the Supreme Court's power is writing laws that supersede the rulings on existing laws. If we just rest on ever increasing current interpretations of past laws to drive current policy then we are going to give an ever increasing amount of power to the judicial branch.
dannyobrien 2y ago
If the courts decide against the USAF's interpretation of the ruling, will you change your mind?
nonethewiser 2y ago
> We will soon see what a huge and harmful deal the recent Chevron ruling is. The Supreme Court needs to be gutted. You dont seem to understand the role of the judiciary. Even if the removal of Chevron deference has the most destructive effect of any ruling of all time, that in no way suggests the law was interpreted incorrectly which is the actual purpose of the court. Suggesting the court should be gutted because of harmful effects just shows you don’t want a judiciary at all.
- skhunted 2y ago
  Congress has the power to impeach and remove judges. It’s a political decision to do such a thing. I advocate that Congress exercise this power. This is no way means I don’t want a judiciary. The reason Congress was given this power was precisely in case the Court went too far in its rulings or otherwise did things that are politically unacceptable. I agree with the dissenters in the ruling under discussion. The ruling was badly wrong and it’s clear that the Court is going to expand on this rulimg and it’s going to have dire consequences. Removal of justices is warranted.
smrtinsert 2y ago
Rather, expanded. Way too much is influenced by the decisions of a few. The opposing political party (nor the American people) shouldn't ever fear that one president could turn the country for decades just because they had the power to appt 1 or 2 justices
throw10920 2y ago
[flagged]
EasyMark 2y ago
Exactly. Chevron was a reasonable decision and the only reason it got overturned was a concerted effort by lobbyists, billionaires, Heritage Foundation, and corporate boards to overturn something that kept them from paying for the costs of their damage to the air, water, and ecosystems where we live. The US oligopoly is showing through in the manner of socializing costs and privatizing profits.

Ummm… I assume you are complaining about the Loper Bright decision that ended “Chevron deferrence”, correct? You do realize that the Chevron decision was to give Dick Cheney his way on environmental questions, yes? Loper Bright says that regulators can’t change rules on a whim as they go along, and ignore/exceed congressional authority. What part of that do you have a problem with?

xp84 2y ago
I presume the GP is frustrated by Congress's inability to do anything, and at this moment considers "Just trust the executive branch to be acting in good faith" as an acceptable solution. I suppose they probably way overestimate the odds that we won't have a brand new executive branch with wildly different priorities and definition of reality in 5 months.
skhunted 2y ago
For 40 years or so laws granting regulatory authority to federal agencies were written with the understanding that Chevron Deference was the law of the land. Now those laws grating regulatory authority are going to be considered too vague. What will happen is that regulatory agencies will be thwarted in their duty to protect the public. Where the court is headed is that they will require a level of specificity in writing laws that grant regulatory authority that is impractical. Read what the dissenting opinions were and see where they think things are headed.
- dbcurtis 2y ago
  I think the reality is that regulations will become more “sticky”. There will be a motivation to get it “right” the first time. Overall, I am happy to see an end to capricious reinterpretation with every change of administration. I don’t expect that we will see more specific legislation.
  - skhunted 2y ago
    There wasn’t a capricious change with every administration. You can point to isolated examples but not some over arching, wide ranging scheme. Your view about it being a good thing that Chevron is gone will not age well. You will be like the Texas ranchers that vote Republican and complain about oil companies polluting their water.

jhawk28 2y ago

Chevron has been zombie precedent for years. Do you really want the interpretation of administrative law changing every four years? This is just another example of the Supreme Court telling Congress to do their job which is where the political focus should be. If you want PFAS to be cleaned up, then get your congressperson to pass a law to have the executive branch do it. It is going to be much more effective in the long run.

lukeschlather 2y ago
Do you really want review of novel harmful chemicals to require an act of Congress to stop? PFAS are kind of iffy, the science is very mixed and it makes sense that there's going to be some flip-flopping depending on the administration. But like if there were some novel substance like DDT with similar toxcicity, that shouldn't require Congress to step in and say "no you can't put this in the water supply." Seems totally reasonable that the law should simply specify what effects require regulation and leave it to the administrators to determine which substances have which effects.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Congress doesn't need to pass a law per chemical, they need to firmly and clearly pass a law to follow up with what they want that bar for review to be in a way the Supreme Court is left without a doubt of what the existing laws meant to say. The consequences of reversing Chevron definitely seem dire to me but the court's majority opinion of why they did is also pretty reasonable.
  - redserk 2y ago
    I'd suggest you consider reading the laws that Congress has passed to create agencies. Congress already does this. Congress does not simply write "This bill establishes the Department of Slinky Tossing" and lets the Executive define, without any restriction, what this agency should do. Congress would at least define this agency as responsible for launching Slinkies in a manner that is at least partially airborne for some of it's trajectory. Now here's where things get tricky, Congress must write in immutable words that must withstand decades of scrutiny on their definition. Let's say "airborne" was used because they did not want this agency merely cradling Slinkies into the ocean, nor did Congress want the Slinkies to remain in boxes. So in a few years of tossing Slinkies around on earth, this "Department of Slinky Tossing" partners with NASA to throw Slinkies around on Mars. A new opportunity arises for the true linguo-contrarian looking for a gladitorial match entrenched in establishing meaning: Congress used the term "airborne". Airborne requires an object being in air. But how does one define "air"? Did Congress intend for air to refer to the atmosphere on Earth? The gaseous atmosphere around any planet? And really, what is a planet? Could this definition of "air" be restricted to gaseous mixtures consumable by humans? Who knows! Now we must defer to a court to decide if the breathability of air impacts the definition of the term "airborne", and if the "Department of Slinky Tossing" is allowed to toss Slinkies on Mars simply because "airborne" has been ambiguously defined in both common usage and law. Unfortunately, the Department of Slinky Tossing is unable to defend itself by claiming that Congress continued to fund their wiggly experiments, which to the agency, suggests the agency was still within permissible bounds. Congress' appropriations process ensures there is an opportunity every year to refuse the "Department of Slinky Tossing"'s space aspirations if inter-planetary slinky tossing is a leap too far. The Court seems to disapprove of the notion that the appropriations process is Congress allowing an agency to continue to operate as it's been running. Ultimately, I think this ruling simply cements that language-pedants ought to spend their energy finding a fufilling hobby.

Dig1t 2y ago

I don't know what gutting the supreme court actually means, but this is incentive for Congress to work together and actually write laws instead of shunting this responsibility to agencies whos rules change every 4 years.

zamadatix 2y ago

Another thing this court has highlighted is we shouldn't rest on specific legal interpretations when big and important ambiguities are raised. Whether it's the interpretation of the Constitution as protecting abortion in Roe v. Wade, whether or not the 14th amendment does or does not allow factoring race into college admissions via affirmative action in Grutter v. Bollinger, when courts must defer to agency interpretation of a law as found in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., or other such important decisions it's not something we should just leave as settled via current interpretation rather something we should seek to reinforce via updates to the law. That such important things make it to the Supreme Court to decide interpretation should be hint it may not be as clear cut as we'd like to have believed. The biggest factor in limiting the Supreme Court's power is writing laws that supersede the rulings on existing laws. If we just rest on ever increasing current interpretations of past laws to drive current policy then we are going to give an ever increasing amount of power to the judicial branch.

dannyobrien 2y ago

If the courts decide against the USAF's interpretation of the ruling, will you change your mind?

nonethewiser 2y ago

> We will soon see what a huge and harmful deal the recent Chevron ruling is. The Supreme Court needs to be gutted. You dont seem to understand the role of the judiciary. Even if the removal of Chevron deference has the most destructive effect of any ruling of all time, that in no way suggests the law was interpreted incorrectly which is the actual purpose of the court. Suggesting the court should be gutted because of harmful effects just shows you don’t want a judiciary at all.

skhunted 2y ago
Congress has the power to impeach and remove judges. It’s a political decision to do such a thing. I advocate that Congress exercise this power. This is no way means I don’t want a judiciary. The reason Congress was given this power was precisely in case the Court went too far in its rulings or otherwise did things that are politically unacceptable. I agree with the dissenters in the ruling under discussion. The ruling was badly wrong and it’s clear that the Court is going to expand on this rulimg and it’s going to have dire consequences. Removal of justices is warranted.

smrtinsert 2y ago

Rather, expanded. Way too much is influenced by the decisions of a few. The opposing political party (nor the American people) shouldn't ever fear that one president could turn the country for decades just because they had the power to appt 1 or 2 justices

throw10920 2y ago

[flagged]

EasyMark 2y ago

Exactly. Chevron was a reasonable decision and the only reason it got overturned was a concerted effort by lobbyists, billionaires, Heritage Foundation, and corporate boards to overturn something that kept them from paying for the costs of their damage to the air, water, and ecosystems where we live. The US oligopoly is showing through in the manner of socializing costs and privatizing profits.