Supreme Court conservatives signal willingness to roll back the power of federal agencies
Supreme Court conservatives signal willingness to roll back the power of federal agencies
The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has spent several hours Wednesday attacking a longstanding legal doctrine that gives federal agencies wide latitude to create policies and regulations in various areas of life.
The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority spent several hours Wednesday attacking a longstanding legal doctrine that gives federal agencies wide latitude to create policies and regulations in various areas of life.
The justices heard two cases concerning the so-called Chevron deference, which emerged from a 1984 case. Oral arguments in the first case went well beyond the allotted hour, with the conservatives signaling their willingness to overturn the decades-old case and their liberal colleagues sounding the alarm on how such a reversal would upend how the federal government enforces all kinds of regulations.
Congress routinely writes open-ended, ambiguous laws that leave the policy details to agency officials. The Chevron deference stipulates that when disputes arise over regulation of an ambiguous law, judges should defer to agency interpretations, as long as the interpretations are reasonable.
...
The three liberal justices warned during Wednesday’s pair of arguments that overturning the 1984 decision in Chevron would force courts to make policy decisions that they argue are better left for experts employed by federal agencies.
“I see Chevron as doing the very important work of helping courts stay away from policymaking,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, adding later: “I’m worried about the courts becoming über legislators.”
Literally, the point of Chevron was that we cannot expect legislators to be as knowledgeable as the experts working at specific agencies. So allow the agencies leeway to act within the scope of the grant authorized by Congress. If Congress sees an overstep, then they can rein in that authority. I would love to hear a well-reasoned argument on why this should be disturbed.
Although, I know it will be overturned and well-reasoned won't be part of the decision.
82Also that if Congress is vague, it's up to the agency to fill in the gaps.
10
This is fascism
51They've aleady won. Leave, if you can.
13Really? They haven't won anything. They've made progress, they are advancing a genocide against trans people like me and I'm not even this doomery, but the resistance to any destruction of this country will grind it to a hault again and again. They havent won the popular vote in this country in decades.
Get out and vote. Organize and resist. BLM was the biggest civil rights movement in the world. Covid shut this place down. Resistence is as easy as organizing a stay at home day.
And oh look the unions are already planning it. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/04/business/uaw-next-auto-strike/index.html
13
Ugh, this is one I’ve been dreading this case for a while. Overturning the Chevron doctrine gives way too much power to activist judges.
49Supreme Court is sending us back to the previous century
30More specifically, the Republican Party is.
16
it's what the "conservative" judges are getting paid for
14The arguments were infuriating. They seemed to forget there are 2 parts to Chevron deference, the first being to see rather or not the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. They seem to think the government can force through some pained stretch of the law when they cannot.
This will literally lead to the opposite, with people arguing outright unreasonable interpretations while claiming ambiguity. And the Republicans-packed judiciary will go right along with it. This is purely about making sure any liberal policy goal can be blocked.
This case should be over with step 1. Is it reasonable that fishermen have to pay 20% of the haul for their monitors? No. Heck, I think, as the program is suspended anyway, the case is moot for the done being and should be dismissed for lack of standing.
The original case was about rather a stationery source of pollution under the Clean Air Act is a whole complex (as the Regan EPA chose to interpret), or individual sources within the complex (as the Carter EPA previously enforced). Both are frankly reasonable, but I’m sure we’ll get some Republican judges ruling that since the Earth revolves around the sun, there is no such thing as a stationary pollution source.
6rather
whether
1
Billionaires have paid BOTH Republicans and Democrats for this legal victory. It's another reason Obama didn't fight hard for his pick, and why the dems didn't stop Drunky McRape from getting a seat.
Theater was fine, but this is what all those campaign "donations" (read bribes) were for.
-20You're getting downvoted but you're right. Princeton even did a study
5Didn’t fight hard for his pick? What did you expect him to do? Go in there and start punching people? The senate has to confirm his pick and republicans were/are notorious for blocking anything a democrat president tries to do.
2- Spend EVERY day having a press announcement on it and bashing the GOP with the latgest bully pulpit on the planet
- Expand and pack the court
- Push a court case that it was their duty.
- Push a case that it threatened national security based on issues it was holding up.
- Move to just put someone in the seat regardless and let it get argued in the courts meanwhile the seat is filled.
- withhold all federal funds to any state who's senator was blocking it
- Any number of creative parliamentary maneuvers that let the GOP decide everything even when they're in the minority
- BREAK ALL NORMS, just like the GOP did in stealing th pick. But Dems roll over and play victim. It's all they EVER do, even when they control Hoise, Senate and POTUS at the same time.
There's a ton of other shit too, but you get the point. Obama was quiet most days and played victim, bc the billionaires who owned him and who he bailed out of the financial crisis told him to ge a good boy and he did.
0