4 ms·
That is false. Please don't spread misinformation. Chevron had nothing to do with how legislatures write laws. The prevalence of extreme propaganda on this sit
by torstenvl 2y ago
That 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".