5 ms·
> Chevron deference wasn't created by Congress Yeah, but they could've overturned it if they didn't like it. > The main difference is that now unelected judge
by xracy 2y ago
> Chevron deference wasn't created by Congress
Yeah, but they could've overturned it if they didn't like it.
> The main difference is that now unelected judges decide how to interpret the law instead of unelected administrative officials. But that's what judges do.
This is a huge difference you kinda skip over. Should the policies and regulations of 100s of industries be decided by:
1. People who are only familiar with court proceedings
2. Experts in those industries with experience in those industries
One of those things is meaningfully worse, because we're going to get a ton of "armchair experts" on culture war issues who have no idea about what's happening on the ground, and just have their own culture-war opinion that ignores the nuance of the situation.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago> Yeah, but they could've overturned it if they didn't like it. The question is if they could've passed it to begin with. There is nothing in the constitution giving Congress the power to delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch, much less deprive the courts of their interpretive role. > Should the policies and regulations of 100s of industries be decided by: > 1. People who are only familiar with court proceedings 2. Experts in those industries with experience in those industries The first one is actually better, because it makes it harder for the industry to capture the decisionmakers. Meanwhile the experts are still in the court, they just have to argue their case before the judge instead of having the parties argue their case before the "experts" with a sack of cash.
- xracy 2y agoThe 1st one is only better if judges are unbiased, but they're not, and we need to stop pretending like they are.