3 ms·

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 c

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
    To further underline how misled you are on this: SCOTUS actually didn't overturn the moratorium. They upheld it! And no decision at any level was on Constitutional grounds. I think you should find different sources for your legal analysis.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      Well, that's one thing you're right on! I was naive enough to still be reading legacy media on occasion back during COVID, and it was universally, and [in hindsight] typically disingenuously, implied that it was the Supreme Court acting to end the moratorium and not simply upholding lower courts already existing judgements and termination of such. [1] So, thanks for that! However, that naivete ended not too long thereafter. And indeed Chevron was ended by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. The opinion for it is here. [2] --- Under the Chevron doctrine, courts have sometimes been required to defer to “permissible” agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer—even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled. Article III of the Constitution assigns to the Federal Judiciary the responsibility and power to adjudicate “Cases” and “Controversies”—concrete disputes with consequences for the parties involved. ... As Chief Justice Marshall declared in the foundational decision of Marbury v. Madison, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” --- [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/aug/27/us-supreme-court-blocks-biden-eviction-moratorium https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/aug/27/us-supreme-court... [2] - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

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
  To further underline how misled you are on this: SCOTUS actually didn't overturn the moratorium. They upheld it! And no decision at any level was on Constitutional grounds. I think you should find different sources for your legal analysis.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    Well, that's one thing you're right on! I was naive enough to still be reading legacy media on occasion back during COVID, and it was universally, and [in hindsight] typically disingenuously, implied that it was the Supreme Court acting to end the moratorium and not simply upholding lower courts already existing judgements and termination of such. [1] So, thanks for that! However, that naivete ended not too long thereafter. And indeed Chevron was ended by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. The opinion for it is here. [2] --- Under the Chevron doctrine, courts have sometimes been required to defer to “permissible” agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer—even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled. Article III of the Constitution assigns to the Federal Judiciary the responsibility and power to adjudicate “Cases” and “Controversies”—concrete disputes with consequences for the parties involved. ... As Chief Justice Marshall declared in the foundational decision of Marbury v. Madison, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” --- [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/aug/27/us-supreme-court-blocks-biden-eviction-moratorium https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/aug/27/us-supreme-court... [2] - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf