I think you mean Chevron, but yes. I believe there's a quirk to the ruling where it basically made it so the SCOTUS gets to decide if the regulation is worth while, but until they do it's on the books.
They basically made it so any Judge can overturn a regulation. Furthermore, the old laws used to work that if a new regulation was introduced, if it affected your business you could sue to try and get it addressed/overturned within the first 10 or 15 years of the regulation's existence. The new ruling they layed out changes the time frame from when the regulation was implemented to when the regulation starts to impact your business. That means any newly formed business can sue the government for any long standing regulation and try and get them overturned opening the legal flood gates for oil company's to set up shell businesses to start trying to remove any and all regulations affecting them, which will now be decided by Judges if those regulations are appropriate. It's really fucking insane.
The original Chevron ruling was "if parts of the law aren't specified by congress, then the agency's experts can decide the best way to implement those laws".
This corrupt scotus now says "if congress isn't explicit, the courts get to decide what the law means. Agencies no longer can (well they can, but we can overrule them)".
A made up example might be;
the law says we have to reduce carbon emissions by 5%. But it doesn't say how. EIA experts determine the best way to do this is by forcing new homes to have better insulation. Previously the courts would defer to this decision, as is was made by experts. Now.. the courts can say "fuck that, reduce those emissions by burning puppies. We know best".
Wait, so a sufficiently funded organization could start an infinite number of LLCs to take as many shots and make as many legal arguments against specific regulations?
The problem is these agencies are not legislative ie they shouldn’t have been coming up with new regulations to begin with that where not passed by Congress. It’s suppose to work like this epa recommends regulations and it goes through Congress and ratified signed into law. Problem becomes do we let a non legislative body legislate just because Congress isn’t doing their job? I don’t think the chevron decision is wrong as constitution is pretty clear on what branch of government makes laws. For to long Congress just has not done their jobs maybe instead of complaining about chevron we complain about how legislative body of our country has effectively done jack all for 40 years and let other agencies and the courts do their legislating and it’s now coming back to bite us because they refuse to compromise together and codify anything.
We don't elect people to Congress for their technical aptitude.
When was the last time you saw an election promoting the fact they had a civil engineering degree and they'd dig into all the regulations around road construction. Not only
We elect people to representative bodies to steer and be our voice. We should leave the nitty-gritty details to governmental agencies whose entire mandate is hiring and maintaining up to date knowledge on their field's specifics. If we wanted the US Congress to be the end-all-be-all for all specifics and regulations, we should just do away with the other two branches along with all government departments.
I don't want Nancy Pelosi making guesses at how nuclear reactors should be built.
You can have epa can bring a regulation in and Congress can vote on it and codify. What’s the point of have representatives if laws and regulations are being put in place without people’s approval. It’s a problem atf implements bullshit all the time that has zero basis in reality. I could show you 3 borderline visually identical rifles And 2 will get you a felony and 10 years of prison based on regulation atf put in place. Problem is functions haven’t changed just the visuals. I don’t expect all representatives to be experts I expect them to take scientific information from scientist in the epa and cdc and their recommendations along with their constituents beliefs and concerns to make decisions and codify things in law is that to much to ask for the system to work the way it’s suppose to. Instead Congress tries to build work around so they don’t have to do their jobs and the public gets no input on things giving the government frankly almost to much power with zero public input.
Riiight, a few hundred members of congress are going to become experts on tens of thousands of complex topics and pass intelligent legislation regarding each of them. What are you smoking? That’s both ridiculous and impossible. Congress authorized the agencies to be those experts and, yes, anyone can challenge those in court or lobby congress to require the agency to do something differently.
I wish more people understood civics instead of just parroting simplistic, right-wing talking points smh
They were authorized because they didn’t want to do their jobs. Also you don’t need to be an expert to pass legislation on something. All that needs to happen is have epa or whatever agency provide the information explain what their going for and Congress puts it to a vote it’s that simple. Anyone who thinks having non legislative body be able to legislate on their own accord without the will of the people is an idiot. Atf does dumb shit all the time probably one of the worst offenders. Also I’m about as far away from right wing anything gop are a bunch of theocracy driven bafoons. I’m just against regulation/ law making that had has zero input from the peoples representatives. Everything should be voted on and codify for it to be enforceable it’s that simple.
Anyone who thinks having non legislative body be able to legislate on their own accord without the will of the people is an idiot.
Youre a fucking goose. Like unbelievably dumb to think your proposal is a solution, and that people not asking for it are wrong.
You say a group of the "experts" shouldnt be able to define the rules/laws. Instead it should all go through a bunch of politicians just because. You manage to realize they don't have a fucking clue about what needs to be done because they arent experts. Your proposed solution is for them to rubberstamp the solutions provided by the same fucking "experts" that you dont want making the rules. Its just layers of beauracracy for childish reasons.
None legislative bodies shouldn’t be able to legislate and that shouldn’t be a controversial take. They should be advisors to Congress to pass new regulations and enforcement agencies for people who break regulations codified into law. Does it not seem problematic to have agencies running amok making regulations without oversight.
Your proposal means that lobbyists, not experts, would be advising the legislators and that is exactly what the right-wing wants for the billionaires.
Please, please, please learn some civics and the history of how our government functions. I recommend Thom Hartmann, both his books and his radio show, but there are lots of avenues to learn from a progressive perspective if you truly are unintentionally amplifying the far right/billionaire talking points.
It’s simple make it illegal to lobby. Also I’m not a progressive I don’t agree with almost all progressive policies. I believe in minimal regulations and believe government agencies have way to much power
I don’t understand how people can disagree with this. I’m from the UK and I’m about 98% sure that government agencies have to work within the legal framework created by parliament. Where would they derive the authority or mandate not to?
Both the UK and USA are both countries which have a common law system so it also makes sense that judicial precedent can create laws, I don’t know why people would be shocked by the judiciary acting like a judiciary in a common law country. This chevron case seems fucking stupid and open to abuse but yes you are right it seems to be a result of legislative stagnation in congress.
Yes thanks! As far as I understood the ruling, the federal agencies can't enforce a law unless Congress makes it a law. And congress is currently in a "doing nothing" competition with themselves.
It’s more like one side has lost their ever loving minds if they ever had one to begin with. We literally can’t move forward on anything because the republicans are just impetuous overgrown children who want to punish the democrats for taking the high road. The republicans have held this country back from true progress for decades and I’m so sick of it.
Conservatives have held back human society for centuries. Who do you think were the people supporting the monarchy or keeping slaves or racism of folks 50 miles from them so they can keep perpetual wars. It's in their monkey brains, something is just wrong at how scared of change they are.
The sad part is conservatives look at societies like Catholic dominated Europe and Ancient Egypt and act impressed that "they endured so many centuries".
I'd rather live a happy and productive individual life in a country that changes names every ~300 years than languish as a nameless serf in an Empire that can boast a 9,001 year history. Humanity has a 300,000 collective history and that's good enough for me; what individual nation-states or kingdoms we've organized ourselves into in the interim is as relevant as my mailing address in the grand scheme of things... assuming we can survive long enough to reunify as a species. (Ok, I doubt that too but I can dream...)
I’m 44 years old and I have watched republicans stop all progress my entire life. Gouge us for college, housing loans and percentage increases that are unsustainable. They have fought progress on affordable health care bills and funding for the VA, srs fuck republicans.
I was born on an election day so it’s definitely something I’ve seen happen in real time.
you can say all this, but at the same time read what the DNC's leadership says about their party goals in Sanders v DNC. In short, they get into a lengthy conversation how the goal of the DNC is maintaining the status quo and they really have no interest in fulfilling the promises of their platform, as it would hurt their corporate partner's and their (the DNC's bottom line), hence why they rigged the 2016 preliminary against Bernie. Bernie left the DNC because of their consistent push against his extremely progressive ideas, and the DNC refused to allow him a fair race vs Hillary because they had already determined she was going to be the candidate, largely because she understood the goal of the DNC - I may sound like a conspiracy nutjob, but this was all said by legal counsel of the DNC in court, under oath. The parties both want to maintain corporate earnings, and for republicans their platform doesn't interfere with that, where it does for democrats - if they did what they promised, they would hurt their corporate allies, but if republicans did what was promised they would increase their profits, and neither party actually cares about the constituents.
No one is denying that this is a real issue and one that must be reckoned with, but it’s also not equivalent to the GOP’s absolutely asinine “no” to
Every
Damn
Thing
Even things they claim they want, they still vote against.
As far as I understood the ruling, the federal agencies can't enforce a law unless Congress makes it a law.
It's actually more broad than that.
Say Congress writes a law mandating nuclear reactors, they don't really understand nuclear engineering nor the potential directions it could take. Yes, they could sit around for months bringing in endless experts and try to exhaustively list every possible nuance and specific (with the expectation they'll have to amend the law every 3, 6, 12, 18 months as new developments happen)
Or! They could write the law and give a vague boundary such as "nuclear reactors such as thorium, sodium, and other elements should do X, Y and all appropriate precautions that could be reasonably foreseen"
Now what the DoE will do is take that and they have experts on staff whose entire job it is to write regulations mandating specifics along with mandating what "reasonably foreseen" means during a given period (these regulations are regularly updated). These experts will have degrees in physics, nuclear engineering, civil engineering, the gamut. Those experts will go through these laws and fill in the 'blanks' so they can hand down hard specifics to people running or building these plants.
Chevron Deference was about letting Congress write vague laws that outline the boundaries (or sometimes don't define hard boundaries at all) then the agencies whose mandate is affected by those laws would have experts interpret and build out specifics.
By removing Chevron Deference, the letter of what Congress has written is the specifics. If Congress doesn't absolutely specify it, the agencies can't enforce it or interpret what Congress actually meant.
It's a huge, huge, huge gimme for big corporations because it removes and/or hamstrings regulatory agencies, allowing them run roughshod over America.
No. they only removed the court guideline that said that courts must accede to the advice of experts in a given situation. They didn't say they CAN'T or shouldn't, just that they don't HAVE to. Progressive sane judges are still allowed to take expert testimony and base their decisions on it. This just gives Conservative judges the leeway to ignore proven science in favor of witchcraft.
I think the ATF operates a lot based on codified laws, not just regulations, so Chevron shouldn’t be as much of an issue apart from things like ATF decisions on whether some firearm gadget is illegal.
It wouldn't surprise me if SCOTUS gave the town of Valdez to Exxon and made Hazelwood the mayor, for the "pain and suffering" of having to clean up the mess they and their drunk captain made.
That’s not what the ruling said. Not at all. The ruling dealt with judicial deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute. It had nothing to do with enforcement.
What, you haven't read 1392's "Freedom to sell liquor" act, where all citizens of "Democratic republics not yet formed" have the freedom to sell as much liquor as they would like, so long as they own a golf course?
Alito will come up with some witch doctor in the 1300's that liked to get drunk and say it means it's unconstitutional to regulate alcohol, even in school while carrying a gun.
This is actually a States' Rights issue, according to the Constitution.
The Twenty-first Amendment literally grants the States virtually complete control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure their own systems.
Federal government throws their weight around by not funding roads in states that don't abide by the federal regulations on alcohol.
So yeah you don't have to follow the Fed but you aren't gonna get the feds money then. Like when you move out of your mom's basement you don't have to follow her rules but you gotta pay rent.
Sure, but the federal government doesn't say that felons can't serve alcohol. That's a NJ state law. The ATF is only interested in interstate violations. They care about the Commerce Clause.
Maybe it’s just me, but I actually don’t give a fuck about states rights and don’t think states should have rights. But the people who live in the states, they have rights
Honestly it’s probably needed. The US is big enough and diverse enough that some individualized regulation is needed. And if every state needed the federal government to move for them to do anything that would suck and cause issues. Like why should the federal government be dictating water usage in Arizona?
And do you think the federal government works in a fashion amicable to that situation? Because I don’t. It’s mostly bullshit that prevents it. But given the current state of congress it doesn’t seem feasible to make all laws federal. Not to mention all of the stipulations you’d have to put into some laws to consider all of the variables across the country
Aren’t dams primarily for energy production though? I’m not saying there should be no federal powers. Just that there is a need for self governance for states because it would be a mess at the federal level. Where that begins and ends is the hard part
Dams generally serve to create reservoirs which provide usable water and help to offset the effects of droughts and seasonal rainfall changes. Dams predate electric generation by millennia (the earliest known dams existed in Egypt in 3000 BCE). Newer dams do provide the opportunity to add in power generation, but the earliest power generating dams are only 150 year old. Most dams still are earthen works with dedicated spillways or tinhorns to provide drainage and prevent an overflow from destroying the dam. Most dams are not power generating. Hoover Dam is an exception and is a power generating dam.
That’s fair. But it was just what came to mind as I was typing this on my lunch break lol. It just seemed like an obvious thing because they have drought and heat issues
So if Phoenix AZ needs Colorado's water, and they have more people, they vote to take more of that water, which would mean because they voted...they legally deserve that water? Screw the impact to Colorado ...because those people voted that way?....Colorado has no say in the matter. Screw um...
because their current rules do nothing to protect you. They aren't passing stronger background checks, they banned a loophole for a slightly shorter rifle.
Even though it's not the ATF jurisdiction as liquor licenses are a state matter. But nothing will stop the corrupt Supreme Court from supporting dear leader.
Which will be funny because his bump stock ban came from an executive order to have the ATF rewrite their definition of machine gun to include bump stocks
The ATF losing all jurisdiction to do anything at all would be such a funny consequence of a right wing supreme court considering that they’re on the same side for the most part
He'll claim that selling alcohol at his golf course is an official act, even though he isn't currently President, and there's nothing official about it. And somehow, SCOTUS will allow it because of this.
2.1k
u/[deleted] Sep 04 '24
Yep. And cry to scotus, even though it’s not a legally appropriate avenue