4 ms·
This is the best question here. The FTC can still make and enforce regulations. But the regulatees can now take those enforecements to federal judges who may mo
by josefritzishere 2y ago
This is the best question here. The FTC can still make and enforce regulations. But the regulatees can now take those enforecements to federal judges who may modify or vacate the enforcement action, or even the regulation itself.
The loss of chevron does not end regulation. It creates a morass of inconsistent and inexpert judicial inturpretations. It was the worst supreme court decision in decades.
- freejazz 2y ago> It was the worst supreme court decision in decades That's saying a lot considering that the presidential immunity decision is going to create the same kind of uncertainty surrounding presidential conduct which is likely not going to be resolved for decades.
- alistairSH 2y agoEven worse than near-blanket immunity for the President? I guess we'll find out in January! But yeah, the inconsistent rulings from the bench will be a total dumpster fire.
- ranger_danger 2y agoWhy do you think there will be inconsistent rulings? Wouldn't any such case be accompanied by subject matter expert opinions and testimony?
- alistairSH 2y agoJudges aren't perfect and they aren't completely apolitical. If they were, we wouldn't need appeals courts and SCOTUS. With Chevron in place, that imperfection was somewhat managed by deferring to the experts in the executive branch who were tasked with implementing the rules provided by Congress. Without Chevron, a non-expert judge has to decide whose experts they believe. Additionally, the removal of Chevron opens to doors to a massive number of cases that likely wouldn't be filed under Chevron. So, we're also adding caseload to an already overburdened justice system.
- ranger_danger 2y agoBut experts aren't perfect either... I'm not sure how good of an argument this is if it just boils down to trusting a different set of experts and believing one is somehow inherently better than another? Or maybe I misunderstand.
- wrs 2y agoThe whole point of having a regulatory agency is that you hire full-time experts in the field and rely on them to build a coherent and stable system of rules and enforcement. As one of the regulated parties, this gives you some solid ground to stand on. If this can all be second-guessed in court, then it becomes more of a crap shoot based on a series of judges’ rapport with the selected experts du jour, who are selected primarily based on the suitability of their opinion, rather than their expertise.
- ranger_danger 2y agoWhat says the full-time experts won't have the "wrong" opinions?
- alistairSH 2y agoNothing. That was the case with the ATF bump stock ban a few years ago - eventually it was deemed executive overreach. But, the bar for proving that was higher with Chevron in place (went to appeals, where without Chevron it could go either way in district court based on a single judge's opinion).
- meta_x_ai 2y ago[dead]
- lesuorac 2y ago"can now take" isn't really accurate. You could always appeal the rulings from federal agencies in court and that's how we lost chevron [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Ra...
- tick_tock_tick 2y ago> It was the worst supreme court decision in decades. Probably one of the best in decades... Seriously how did we get to the point that hacker news of all places is fondly dreaming of a near presidential dictatorship where rule making doesn't even need the legislative branch.
- josefritzishere 2y agoI definitely see it as the worst. We only have three branches of government, which one is best suited to handle minor regulation? There are three possible answers and none have the expertise to be competent. The argument for delegating areas of expertise made itself decades ago.
- tick_tock_tick 2y agoYour argument is completely non nonsensical... Congress is still free to delegate as much or as little as it wants to the Executive. The only thing the removal of Chevron did was prevent agencies from claiming additional authority over things Congress gave them no role in.
- mschoch 2y agoI think you meant not non non non non non nonsensical
- ActorNightly 2y agoIts cute how people give Republicans credit for anything, really. Its not like the agencies could just do what they want prior - they generally had to follow the policies with freedom to interpret vague laws, and its up to congress to pass more clarifying laws. The Chevron doctrine overruling wasn't taking power away from the executive branch, it was a backup plan if Democrats won, the Supreme Court can have power against the incoming administration. It should be pretty evident that the Republican Justices are solely in MAGA territory, considering Trump vs US ruling.