3 ms·

Totally disagree. Administrative law has not changed every four years, and it is literally impossible for Congress to legislate every detail of every policy. T

Totally disagree. Administrative law has not changed every four years, and it is literally impossible for Congress to legislate every detail of every policy. The intent of overturning Chevron was to do away with regulations, and it's likely to work. Congress could spend a month working out the exact right policies and chemicals and requirements for PFAS, and there would still be some loophole / discovery that a chemical is slightly different than exactly what was legislated. And in the meantime, the This is literally like saying the Alphabet board of directors should have to write every product requirement for every product in every company in Alphabet's portfolio. Delegation is the only way large organizations can work effectively, and outlawing it in government is expressly intended to make government impossible.

avalys 2y ago
That is not what the decision overturning Chevron says. The requirement is not that Congress now has to write regulation about specific chemicals or specific details of every area. It's that ambiguities in the authority granted by Congress to regulatory agencies are resolved by the courts - not by the agencies themselves. Nothing stops Congress from writing a law which unambiguously grants an agency broad authority to regulate (for instance) chemicals and pollutants.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  You’re being disingenuous. Congress is deadlocked and ineffective, so to say “Nothing stops Congress” ignores reality. “Congress stops Congress” for years, if not decades, until enough of the older cohorts age out and functional reps get elected [1] [2]. 25% of Congress doesn't even believe in climate change [3]. Ergo, pack the court and override the dysfunction. This works itself out through demographics eventually [4] [5] (~1.8M voters 55+ age out every year, ~5k/day, ~4M young voters age into voting each year). We do what we do best as a species: we kick the can into the future. [1] https://www.axios.com/2023/12/19/118-congress-bills-least-unproductive-chart https://www.axios.com/2023/12/19/118-congress-bills-least-un... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polar... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/climate-change-denial-congress https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/clim... [4] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/04/PP_2024.4.9_partisan-coalitions_4-01.png https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/site... [5] https://www.ft.com/content/c361e372-769e-45cd-a063-f5c0a7767cf4 https://www.ft.com/content/c361e372-769e-45cd-a063-f5c0a7767... | https://archive.today/lQoLa https://archive.today/lQoLa
  - xp84 2y ago
    You're not wrong that Congress is now incapable of doing its important job, but I don't know if I agree that the answer is to just trust the executive branch. Keep in mind even if you like the current guy that it's about to be run by a guy you definitely don't like. What I'm saying is it's complicated, and it seems we are paying the price for letting our government be utterly destroyed in its effectiveness.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      > You're not wrong that Congress is now incapable of doing its important job, but I don't know if I agree that the answer is to just trust the executive branch. Keep in mind even if you like the current guy that it's about to be run by a guy you definitely don't like. If the options are hope or action, and action might need to be fixed down the road, I ain't pickin' hope. This is a reasonable risk to accept based on the situation and options available, we are at an impasse. > What I'm saying is it's complicated, and it seems we are paying the price for letting our government be utterly destroyed in its effectiveness. Agreed, but the only path forward is to try to fix it, not bikeshed about how sad it is we got here. Talk to Newt about that. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gi... https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/burning-down-house-newt-gingrich-fall-speaker-and-rise-new-republican-party https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/burning-dow... https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-inside-story-of-how-newt-gingrich-single-handedly-destroyed-congress https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-inside-story-of-how-newt-g...
    - krapp 2y ago
      >What I'm saying is it's complicated, and it seems we are paying the price for letting our government be utterly destroyed in its effectiveness. I guess the Constitution really is a suicide pact after all.
  - avalys 2y ago
    So, you think we should have the president make the laws, and the president should also control the courts so that they’re unable to stop him from making the laws? Do you not see a potential problem with this approach? Congress is not deadlocked. What you mean is, you support a policy which is not popular enough to pass Congress, and you feel strongly enough about the need for this policy that you think it should bypass the American democratic system and be enacted through extra-legal means if necessary. Tell me, which party is threatening democracy again?
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  > that ambiguities in the authority granted by Congress to regulatory agencies are resolved by the courts - not by the agencies themselves. that is exactly the problem; those decisions should be made by regulatory agencies, who are experts in science, not on courts, who are experts in the law. It's a horrible ruling that makes these types of decisions even more political than they already were.

avalys 2y ago

That is not what the decision overturning Chevron says. The requirement is not that Congress now has to write regulation about specific chemicals or specific details of every area. It's that ambiguities in the authority granted by Congress to regulatory agencies are resolved by the courts - not by the agencies themselves. Nothing stops Congress from writing a law which unambiguously grants an agency broad authority to regulate (for instance) chemicals and pollutants.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
You’re being disingenuous. Congress is deadlocked and ineffective, so to say “Nothing stops Congress” ignores reality. “Congress stops Congress” for years, if not decades, until enough of the older cohorts age out and functional reps get elected [1] [2]. 25% of Congress doesn't even believe in climate change [3]. Ergo, pack the court and override the dysfunction. This works itself out through demographics eventually [4] [5] (~1.8M voters 55+ age out every year, ~5k/day, ~4M young voters age into voting each year). We do what we do best as a species: we kick the can into the future. [1] https://www.axios.com/2023/12/19/118-congress-bills-least-unproductive-chart https://www.axios.com/2023/12/19/118-congress-bills-least-un... [2] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polar... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/climate-change-denial-congress https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/clim... [4] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/04/PP_2024.4.9_partisan-coalitions_4-01.png https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/site... [5] https://www.ft.com/content/c361e372-769e-45cd-a063-f5c0a7767cf4 https://www.ft.com/content/c361e372-769e-45cd-a063-f5c0a7767... | https://archive.today/lQoLa https://archive.today/lQoLa
- xp84 2y ago
  You're not wrong that Congress is now incapable of doing its important job, but I don't know if I agree that the answer is to just trust the executive branch. Keep in mind even if you like the current guy that it's about to be run by a guy you definitely don't like. What I'm saying is it's complicated, and it seems we are paying the price for letting our government be utterly destroyed in its effectiveness.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    > You're not wrong that Congress is now incapable of doing its important job, but I don't know if I agree that the answer is to just trust the executive branch. Keep in mind even if you like the current guy that it's about to be run by a guy you definitely don't like. If the options are hope or action, and action might need to be fixed down the road, I ain't pickin' hope. This is a reasonable risk to accept based on the situation and options available, we are at an impasse. > What I'm saying is it's complicated, and it seems we are paying the price for letting our government be utterly destroyed in its effectiveness. Agreed, but the only path forward is to try to fix it, not bikeshed about how sad it is we got here. Talk to Newt about that. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gi... https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/burning-down-house-newt-gingrich-fall-speaker-and-rise-new-republican-party https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/burning-dow... https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-inside-story-of-how-newt-gingrich-single-handedly-destroyed-congress https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-inside-story-of-how-newt-g...
  - krapp 2y ago
    >What I'm saying is it's complicated, and it seems we are paying the price for letting our government be utterly destroyed in its effectiveness. I guess the Constitution really is a suicide pact after all.
- avalys 2y ago
  So, you think we should have the president make the laws, and the president should also control the courts so that they’re unable to stop him from making the laws? Do you not see a potential problem with this approach? Congress is not deadlocked. What you mean is, you support a policy which is not popular enough to pass Congress, and you feel strongly enough about the need for this policy that you think it should bypass the American democratic system and be enacted through extra-legal means if necessary. Tell me, which party is threatening democracy again?
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> that ambiguities in the authority granted by Congress to regulatory agencies are resolved by the courts - not by the agencies themselves. that is exactly the problem; those decisions should be made by regulatory agencies, who are experts in science, not on courts, who are experts in the law. It's a horrible ruling that makes these types of decisions even more political than they already were.