4 ms·

My use of "reasonable" might have made the matter confusing. I think "not reasonably within their mandate" and could be argued "to be reasonably within their ma

My use of "reasonable" might have made the matter confusing. I think "not reasonably within their mandate" and could be argued "to be reasonably within their mandate" are two very different things, but this is made much cleaner if I simply change reasonably to clearly. Without Chevron, regulators have to stay within the bounds of the mandate clearly legally granted to them by Congress. With Chevron, they could step far beyond those bounds, so long as there was a "reasonable" argument for it. Again the example with the CDC makes this very clear. A mandate enabling them to carry out actions "necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases" like testing, inspections, quarantines, and so forth does not clearly (or even reasonably) grant them the right to also prevent evictions. But they could create a "reasonable" argument that, though ambiguous, it should. With Chevron this ambiguity was up to the regulator to decide themselves. Without Chevron, it's up to the judiciary to decide (if the regulator is sued). So circling back to the point here - the end of Chevron has absolutely 0 impact on the ability of a regulator under the clear mandate to 'ban unsafe plastics' from being able to 'ban unsafe plastics.'

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
Again: no. Easiest way to explain is to correct your second paragraph: > [With or] without Chevron, regulators have to stay within the bounds of the mandate clearly legally granted to them by Congress. With Chevron, they could step far beyond [my interpretation of] those bounds, so long as [a court found the regulator's interpretation was reasonable]. Without Chevron, even if the agency's interpretation is reasonable, the court can just come up with their own interpretation in place of it. This effectively destroys regulators' ability to make rules across broader scopes of scenarios than the ones defined explicitly in legislation (Chemical X != Chemical X.1) or across broader jurisdictions than the ones tested in court (Chemical X can rather easily be disallowed in District 2, allowed in District 5 just based on different judges' interpretations of the specific cases before them, totally divorced from the scientific basis for the ban on the chemical itself). You seem to be drawing a distinction between whether their interpretation is reasonable versus whether a "reasonable argument could be made" that their interpretation is reasonable. The latter does not exist. The courts only test the former. You can read how the Chevron test was applied to remove the eviction moratorium because, in fact, it's not up to the regulator to decide themselves. Their interpretation is actually reviewable by the court and will be struck down if found to be unreasonable [1] > the end of Chevron has absolutely 0 impact on the ability of a regulator under the clear mandate to 'ban unsafe plastics' from being able to 'ban unsafe plastics.' Lol, if this were true then not one industrial group would care if Chevron stood for eternity. But in fact they're salivating over this decision. Care to share your theory for why that is? [1]: https://clearinghouse.net/doc/112509/ https://clearinghouse.net/doc/112509/
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Regulatory agencies do not operate on mandates like 'ban hydroxywhateverazine.' Something that specific would be passed as a law. They all operate on somewhat more broad guidance which is then up to the regulator to implement. The issue that Chevron deals with is what happens when a regulator tries to grab power that is not clearly within that guidance? Before, with Chevron Deference, the judiciary's power to do anything was extremely limited. If the agency's interpretation of their mandate was "reasonable" then the judiciary was compelled to defer to the regulator. Now, without Chevron Deference, the judiciary can actually play their role as judge once again. It's not hard to see why Chevron Deference was deemed unconstitutional. It's up to the judiciary to judge the law, not politicians and certainly not bureaucrats! Notably the CDC's eviction moratorium was only overturned by the Supreme Court! Lower courts were obligated to defer to the CDC even in such an arguably absurd interpretation of their mandate.
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    Again: you’re wrong. And you’re apparently not even interested in understanding your own position. The decision I just linked to is from a district court. I.e. no, they actually DO NOT have the obligation that you’re supposing they do. Care to share your theory why industry groups are so thrilled with this if it has “0 impact” on regulators’ ability to regulate? > Regulatory agencies do not operate on mandates like 'ban hydroxywhateverazine.' Yes, in fact they will have to operate via statutes this strict if they don’t want everything to get litigated a million times. That’s sort of the whole point. Your “ban dangerous plastics” is a hilarious example of this. What do you mean by “ban?” In what contexts? In what concentrations? In what formulations? In what exposure levels? Okay now what do you mean by “dangerous?” In what contexts? In what concentrations? In what formulations? In what exposure levels? Previously, regulators could (and did) employ scientists to produce these answers and govern accordingly with published rules that applied nationwide with all such rules subject to judicial review for the “reasonableness” in their statutory basis. Now, courts have to answer these case by case, district by district, scenario by scenario. Great work! It’s clear from your first comment that you did not know what the Chevron test was and you’re trying to retcon your argument.

sorcerer-mar 2y ago

Again: no. Easiest way to explain is to correct your second paragraph: > [With or] without Chevron, regulators have to stay within the bounds of the mandate clearly legally granted to them by Congress. With Chevron, they could step far beyond [my interpretation of] those bounds, so long as [a court found the regulator's interpretation was reasonable]. Without Chevron, even if the agency's interpretation is reasonable, the court can just come up with their own interpretation in place of it. This effectively destroys regulators' ability to make rules across broader scopes of scenarios than the ones defined explicitly in legislation (Chemical X != Chemical X.1) or across broader jurisdictions than the ones tested in court (Chemical X can rather easily be disallowed in District 2, allowed in District 5 just based on different judges' interpretations of the specific cases before them, totally divorced from the scientific basis for the ban on the chemical itself). You seem to be drawing a distinction between whether their interpretation is reasonable versus whether a "reasonable argument could be made" that their interpretation is reasonable. The latter does not exist. The courts only test the former. You can read how the Chevron test was applied to remove the eviction moratorium because, in fact, it's not up to the regulator to decide themselves. Their interpretation is actually reviewable by the court and will be struck down if found to be unreasonable [1] > the end of Chevron has absolutely 0 impact on the ability of a regulator under the clear mandate to 'ban unsafe plastics' from being able to 'ban unsafe plastics.' Lol, if this were true then not one industrial group would care if Chevron stood for eternity. But in fact they're salivating over this decision. Care to share your theory for why that is? [1]: https://clearinghouse.net/doc/112509/ https://clearinghouse.net/doc/112509/

somenameforme 2y ago
Regulatory agencies do not operate on mandates like 'ban hydroxywhateverazine.' Something that specific would be passed as a law. They all operate on somewhat more broad guidance which is then up to the regulator to implement. The issue that Chevron deals with is what happens when a regulator tries to grab power that is not clearly within that guidance? Before, with Chevron Deference, the judiciary's power to do anything was extremely limited. If the agency's interpretation of their mandate was "reasonable" then the judiciary was compelled to defer to the regulator. Now, without Chevron Deference, the judiciary can actually play their role as judge once again. It's not hard to see why Chevron Deference was deemed unconstitutional. It's up to the judiciary to judge the law, not politicians and certainly not bureaucrats! Notably the CDC's eviction moratorium was only overturned by the Supreme Court! Lower courts were obligated to defer to the CDC even in such an arguably absurd interpretation of their mandate.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  Again: you’re wrong. And you’re apparently not even interested in understanding your own position. The decision I just linked to is from a district court. I.e. no, they actually DO NOT have the obligation that you’re supposing they do. Care to share your theory why industry groups are so thrilled with this if it has “0 impact” on regulators’ ability to regulate? > Regulatory agencies do not operate on mandates like 'ban hydroxywhateverazine.' Yes, in fact they will have to operate via statutes this strict if they don’t want everything to get litigated a million times. That’s sort of the whole point. Your “ban dangerous plastics” is a hilarious example of this. What do you mean by “ban?” In what contexts? In what concentrations? In what formulations? In what exposure levels? Okay now what do you mean by “dangerous?” In what contexts? In what concentrations? In what formulations? In what exposure levels? Previously, regulators could (and did) employ scientists to produce these answers and govern accordingly with published rules that applied nationwide with all such rules subject to judicial review for the “reasonableness” in their statutory basis. Now, courts have to answer these case by case, district by district, scenario by scenario. Great work! It’s clear from your first comment that you did not know what the Chevron test was and you’re trying to retcon your argument.