3 ms·

Regulatory agencies do not operate on mandates like 'ban hydroxywhateverazine.' Something that specific would be passed as a law. They all operate on somewhat m

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
    - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
      Good lord. No. Maybe a closer reading of "legacy media" would have served you better than whatever you ended up turning to. There were two CDC moratoriums that made it to SCOTUS. The first was upheld by SCOTUS, the second was struck down. Neither was upheld nor struck down on Constitutional grounds. You should also read the Loper Bright decision more closely. Chevron was struck down due to conflict with the Administrative Procedures Act, not the Constitution. The do not say anywhere that Congress cannot (Constitutionally) delegate such authority to the regulatory agencies. They say that Congress did not do such in a way that reconciles its conflict with the APA.

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
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    Good lord. No. Maybe a closer reading of "legacy media" would have served you better than whatever you ended up turning to. There were two CDC moratoriums that made it to SCOTUS. The first was upheld by SCOTUS, the second was struck down. Neither was upheld nor struck down on Constitutional grounds. You should also read the Loper Bright decision more closely. Chevron was struck down due to conflict with the Administrative Procedures Act, not the Constitution. The do not say anywhere that Congress cannot (Constitutionally) delegate such authority to the regulatory agencies. They say that Congress did not do such in a way that reconciles its conflict with the APA.