3 ms·
this intent/implementation duality was codified by the chevron precedent that was just overturned by the supreme court. the legislature was responsible for est
by ruined 2y ago
this intent/implementation duality was codified by the chevron precedent that was just overturned by the supreme court.
the legislature was responsible for establishing intent, and the executive was responsible for implementation, and the judiciary branch was responsible for resolving disputes.
but the supreme court ruled that the legislative intent has been too vague, and the executive has been too whimsical with implementation. so the legislature must be more specific, or leave it to the judiciary to establish details.
- torstenvl 2y agoThat is false. Please don't spread misinformation. Chevron had nothing to do with how legislatures write laws. The prevalence of extreme propaganda on this site is getting really tiresome. It is an objective, inarguable fact that neither Chevron nor Loper had anything at all to do with the ability of Congress or state legislatures to distinguish between intent and implementation.
- ruined 2y agocan you provide a correct interpretation of the ruling?
- nickff 2y agoNot parent, but Chevron was about deference to agencies, not about whether courts should adhere to legislative intent. The original Chevron ruling was written by a well-known originalist, who usually didn't abide by legislative intent.
- ruined 2y agosure, but agency interpretation is only possible within the vagaries of the legislation. that's 100% synonymous with intention/implementation.
- immibis 2y agoi.o.w. it was about whether Congress just has to write the intent, or whether it has to write the full implementation too.
- torstenvl 2y agoNo. Why would you say something that you know is obviously false? Everyone knows the New Deal administrative state existed. I'd really appreciate it if leftist extremists would stop trying to convince us it didn't.
- torstenvl 2y ago[flagged]
- ruined 2y agoi've skimmed it, that's what i got out of it, but i'm no lawyer. if you aren't going to clearly express your intent here i must continue to rely on my interpretation
- torstenvl 2y agoHN is for intellectual curiosity, and not for ideological battle. If you are going to insist on spewing political talking points instead of reading the opinion, all while refusing to take into account an expert in the field—an attorney for a federal agency—telling you that you're wrong, then you should reconsider whether you belong here.
- throwaway2037 2y agoHere you go: https://www.justice.gov/d9/osg/briefs/1983/01/01/sg830081.txt https://www.justice.gov/d9/osg/briefs/1983/01/01/sg830081.tx... You can read all 7,000 words, then you will better understand the "correct interpretation".
- solidsnack9000 2y agoThe intent / implementation duality isn't related to Chevron or Loper Bright. That is entirely about how to interpret the implementation: to what degree, when considering alternate interpretations, do we weight the agency's own interpretation? The intent / implementation discussion comes up when considering statutes like this: In order to maintain our beautiful forests and meadows, the city of Little Island hereby declares these acts governing the pollution of water: ...<enumeration of acts>... Now many years pass and all the forests are cut down and the meadows are gravel lots, buildings, &c. Is the statute no longer operative? Generally, the way laws are interpreted, the courts would say it is still operative. The alternative would make the interpretation of law quite inconsistent, because it means we are asking courts to judge many things that are not really matters of law.