3 ms·

Don't worry, thanks to Chevron this just needs to get put in front of the right judge and we can get it tossed out in no time at all.

ch4s3 2y ago
That’s not how the legal decision works. Overturning Chevron just means that courts are no longer required to automatically defer to the executive branches interpretation of law where there is statutory ambiguity or silence. Courts must still defer to agencies when congress has conferred the power to make a rule or determination on an agency.
- watwut 2y ago
  Only as long as that rule and determination is in accordance with supreme court politics. Otherwise they will find a way to twist the meanings again, so that they can ensure the outcome they want.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    Chevron was always ridiculous. There’s no constitutional basis for executive agencies filling in accidentally ambiguous laws with their own sometimes expansive interpretations. Interpretation of the law has always been the domain of courts in common law systems.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Which statute bans red 3? In fact, 21 CFR 74.303(c) says the following: > FD&C Red No. 3 may be safely used for coloring foods generally (including dietary supplements) in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice Seems pretty ambiguous to me!
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Overturning Chevron just means that courts are no longer required to automatically defer to the executive branches interpretation of law where there is statutory ambiguity or silence. That has _always_ been the case. > Courts must still defer to agencies when congress has conferred the power to make a rule or determination on an agency. No. Repealing Chevron means that the courts can now be used to determine the _facts_.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Yep, to be clear the thing that Chevron's overturn changed is that if a regulatory agency enforces something, you could take them to court (people seem to think this is the new thing), but they only had to assess whether the agency's interpretation of the statutes was reasonable. Now, the court is allowed to just generate its own interpretation and use that instead.
    - ch4s3 2y ago
      This is only in cases where there is ambiguous language or the law doesn’t specify something. Plain readings of laws aren’t suddenly up for debate.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        And I literally already posted the “ambiguous” language of red 3 legislation. A freshman level course in semantics would tell you how meaningless the phrase “only in cases where there is ambiguous language” is.
        ch4s3 2y ago
        I’m not sure what you’re after here. The phrase “good manufacturing practice” is somewhat ambiguous, unless it’s defined elsewhere in the law.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        > FD&C Red No. 3 may be safely used for coloring foods generally (including dietary supplements) in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice What happens when new science comes in that determines it cannot be used safely? What does "safely" mean? "Safely" to whom? Under what conditions? With what degree of scientific consensus? Scientific consensus amongst whom? "Good Manufacturing Process" is defined, but not in statute. It's defined by the FDA's own regulations, so FDA can update GMP guidelines based on that new science, sure, but all of it is now subordinate to judicial interpretation anyway. My claim is that if people want this to be immune to Loper Bright overturn in some random court somewhere, we now need Congress to pass a law with something like "Red 3 cannot be used in a food product in higher concentrations than 3 ug/g" or whatever. We need Congress to pass identical laws for effectively everything FDA wants to regulate without risk of a random judge overturning it. If new science comes in saying it actually needs to be 0.1 ug/g, welp, time to start lobbying Congress on this extremely, extremely niche and detailed change, which surely wouldn't lag behind the latest science by a couple decades. You're claiming the statute is clear, so please describe specifically what the statute means.

ch4s3 2y ago

That’s not how the legal decision works. Overturning Chevron just means that courts are no longer required to automatically defer to the executive branches interpretation of law where there is statutory ambiguity or silence. Courts must still defer to agencies when congress has conferred the power to make a rule or determination on an agency.

watwut 2y ago
Only as long as that rule and determination is in accordance with supreme court politics. Otherwise they will find a way to twist the meanings again, so that they can ensure the outcome they want.
- ch4s3 2y ago
  Chevron was always ridiculous. There’s no constitutional basis for executive agencies filling in accidentally ambiguous laws with their own sometimes expansive interpretations. Interpretation of the law has always been the domain of courts in common law systems.
llamaimperative 2y ago
Which statute bans red 3? In fact, 21 CFR 74.303(c) says the following: > FD&C Red No. 3 may be safely used for coloring foods generally (including dietary supplements) in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice Seems pretty ambiguous to me!
cyberax 2y ago
> Overturning Chevron just means that courts are no longer required to automatically defer to the executive branches interpretation of law where there is statutory ambiguity or silence. That has _always_ been the case. > Courts must still defer to agencies when congress has conferred the power to make a rule or determination on an agency. No. Repealing Chevron means that the courts can now be used to determine the _facts_.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Yep, to be clear the thing that Chevron's overturn changed is that if a regulatory agency enforces something, you could take them to court (people seem to think this is the new thing), but they only had to assess whether the agency's interpretation of the statutes was reasonable. Now, the court is allowed to just generate its own interpretation and use that instead.
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    This is only in cases where there is ambiguous language or the law doesn’t specify something. Plain readings of laws aren’t suddenly up for debate.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      And I literally already posted the “ambiguous” language of red 3 legislation. A freshman level course in semantics would tell you how meaningless the phrase “only in cases where there is ambiguous language” is.
      - ch4s3 2y ago
        I’m not sure what you’re after here. The phrase “good manufacturing practice” is somewhat ambiguous, unless it’s defined elsewhere in the law.
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        > FD&C Red No. 3 may be safely used for coloring foods generally (including dietary supplements) in amounts consistent with good manufacturing practice What happens when new science comes in that determines it cannot be used safely? What does "safely" mean? "Safely" to whom? Under what conditions? With what degree of scientific consensus? Scientific consensus amongst whom? "Good Manufacturing Process" is defined, but not in statute. It's defined by the FDA's own regulations, so FDA can update GMP guidelines based on that new science, sure, but all of it is now subordinate to judicial interpretation anyway. My claim is that if people want this to be immune to Loper Bright overturn in some random court somewhere, we now need Congress to pass a law with something like "Red 3 cannot be used in a food product in higher concentrations than 3 ug/g" or whatever. We need Congress to pass identical laws for effectively everything FDA wants to regulate without risk of a random judge overturning it. If new science comes in saying it actually needs to be 0.1 ug/g, welp, time to start lobbying Congress on this extremely, extremely niche and detailed change, which surely wouldn't lag behind the latest science by a couple decades. You're claiming the statute is clear, so please describe specifically what the statute means.