Chevron deference, which empowers the administrative state, could be overturned

[eman623]

This is going to open a can of worms, but it's still needed. Congress has abdicated its duties and taken to writing "No bad things" laws. They craft legislation that says basically, "no bad things will be allowed and the executive branch and regulatory agencies have the authority to insure this".

This leads to an explosion of unelected bureaucrats writing myriads upon myriads of regulations that no one ever votes on and Congress never imagined.

I say it's time for the courts to pull that back and force Congress to do its job. Actually, they tried to do this already but lower courts have not followed the precedents. This may send a clear unequivocal message.

Thoughts?

Chevron deference, which empowers the administrative state, could be overturned

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court announced it planned to take up a case challenging a landmark 1984 case affirming vast powers on the part of federal agencies.

www.dailynews.com

 

[Mr Person]

The people who are so beholden to the idea of a crippled tiny government that cannot do anything would absolutely hate their life in a country where they actually got what they say they want. Big-L Libertarianism, which is just about all right wing, is a childish pipe dream.

Anyway,

Chevron deference

www.law.cornell.edu

You will also note that the GOP could have amended the Administrative Procedure Act, which controls agencies, any time they had the power. They didn't. It could have been altered to work the sort of result sought here.

 

[mrjurrs]

This is going to open a can of worms, but it's still needed. Congress has abdicated its duties and taken to writing "No bad things" laws. They craft legislation that says basically, "no bad things will be allowed and the executive branch and regulatory agencies have the authority to insure this".

This leads to an explosion of unelected bureaucrats writing myriads upon myriads of regulations that no one ever votes on and Congress never imagined.

I say it's time for the courts to pull that back and force Congress to do its job. Actually, they tried to do this already but lower courts have not followed the precedents. This may send a clear unequivocal message.

Thoughts?

Chevron deference, which empowers the administrative state, could be overturned

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court announced it planned to take up a case challenging a landmark 1984 case affirming vast powers on the part of federal agencies.

www.dailynews.com

Why would you want the imbeciles in Congress to write specific laws about things they know nothing about?

 

[eman623]

You will also note that the GOP could have amended the Administrative Procedure Act, which controls agencies, any time they had the power. They didn't. It could have been altered to work the sort of result sought here.

Neither party in Congress wants the job of actually making law. That's why they pass "No bad things" laws in the first place, and let the president and regulatory agencies make the sausage.

The courts may have to step in and force Congress to do its job.

 

[eman623]

Why would you want the imbeciles in Congress to write specific laws about things they know nothing about?

If they are imbeciles, why should they be making any laws at all?

The answer is that if they write the specific laws, then there's at least some accountability.

 

[eohrnberger]

Why would you want the imbeciles in Congress to write specific laws about things they know nothing about?

Why would you want the unelected bureaucratic imbeciles in the regulatory agencies to have what amounts to unlimited power about things they know nothing about?

 

[mrjurrs]

If they are imbeciles, why should they be making any laws at all?

The answer is that if they write the specific laws, then there's at least some accountability.

So you expect your elected officials to be experts in all things related to the Executive Branch? What is your rep an expert in?

 

[mrjurrs]

Why would you want the unelected bureaucratic imbeciles in the regulatory agencies to have what amounts to unlimited power about things they know nothing about?

The regulatory agencies are where the experts work.

Your description requires a source, or an imo.

 

[eohrnberger]

The regulatory agencies are where the experts work.

There seems very little evidence given the regulations that they've instituted.

Your description requires a source, or an imo.

Different views apparently. From my view it's pretty obvious, your mileage may vary. Fair enough.

 

[Mr Person]

Neither party in Congress wants the job of actually making law. That's why they pass "No bad things" laws in the first place, and let the president and regulatory agencies make the sausage.

The courts may have to step in and force Congress to do its job.

And yet the GOP is hoping the court will do what it doesn't want to do. You all complain about abortion being legislated (until it was thrown out) from the bench. Why not this? It'd be a sea change in law, as would Chevron. Which is good and which isn't? The former what you want and the latter what you don't?

I wonder if any of DP's lawyers are in the right legal field to understand exactly what it would mean to rule in the way plaintiffs here want. Everyone else - myself partially included because I do appeals in criminal cases involving indigent defendants - does not understand the full implications (or even probably most of them).

 

[mrjurrs]

There seems very little evidence given the regulations that they've instituted.


Different views apparently. From my view it's pretty obvious, your mileage may vary. Fair enough.

Your pov is obvious to you. Failing to provide any backup makes your opinion an asshole. Everybody's got one.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The people who are so beholden to the idea of a crippled tiny government that cannot do anything would absolutely hate their life in a country where they actually got what they say they want. Big-L Libertarianism, which is just about all right wing, is a childish pipe dream.

Anyway,

Chevron deference

www.law.cornell.edu

You will also note that the GOP could have amended the Administrative Procedure Act, which controls agencies, any time they had the power. They didn't. It could have been altered to work the sort of result sought here.

Well they couldn’t because the democrats would never agree to any reform that strips the executive of independent policy power becseue most of their agenda is explicitly anti-democratic and can’t be imposed by congressional elections

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Why would you want the imbeciles in Congress to write specific laws about things they know nothing about?

Why do you support totalitarian dictatorship?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So you expect your elected officials to be experts in all things related to the Executive Branch? What is your rep an expert in?

They can have hearings where they interview experts while drafting the bill

 

[eman623]

So you expect your elected officials to be experts in all things related to the Executive Branch? What is your rep an expert in?

I don't expect them to be experts. I expect them to find experts to advise them and then decide whether to put those policies into effect.

 

[eman623]

And yet the GOP is hoping the court will do what it doesn't want to do. You all complain about abortion being legislated (until it was thrown out) from the bench. Why not this? It'd be a sea change in law, as would Chevron. Which is good and which isn't? The former what you want and the latter what you don't?

I wonder if any of DP's lawyers are in the right legal field to understand exactly what it would mean to rule in the way plaintiffs here want. Everyone else - myself partially included because I do appeals in criminal cases involving indigent defendants - does not understand the full implications (or even probably most of them).

I'm aware of the tradeoffs. I literally opened this thread with the sentence: "This is going to open a can of worms, but it's still needed".

 

[mrjurrs]

Why do you support totalitarian dictatorship?

You obviously do not understand what a totalitarian dictatorship is.
"Totalitarianism is a form of government and a political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual and group opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high if not complete degree of control and regulation over public and private life."

 

[Luce]

I say it's time for the courts to pull that back and force Congress to do its job. Actually, they tried to do this already but lower courts have not followed the precedents. This may send a clear unequivocal message.

Thoughts?

Naw, I don't want ground glass in my food or PFAS in my water.

 

[mrjurrs]

They can have hearings where they interview experts while drafting the bill

They do. Those hearings generally provide direct evidence that a regulatory agency is necessary.

 

[mrjurrs]

I don't expect them to be experts. I expect them to find experts to advise them and then decide whether to put those policies into effect.

That is what regulatory agencies do.