SCOTUS

[BlueK]

Is the argument that agencies should have these powers simply because they are more efficient?

We can vote presidents in or out based on their ideas for how executive branch agencies are implementing rules. That's not trivial. It's a crucial right. Congress can also change rules but the supreme court seems to think it can just throw out what it doesn't like while at the same time blaming Congress. How convenient.

[frank ryan]

Didn't conservatives used to fear activists justices? There was nothing written that conservatives couldn't fall into that category but it was always framed that it was liberal extremist just waiting to legislate from bench.

[frank ryan]

Some things I don't understand that people who I find to be reasonable and generally informed and very intelligent believe about SCOTUS:

The politics of their spouses should cause no alarm or concern because it's not the actual justice themselves. It's is the most basic of psychological concepts that our environments and bonds influence our values and world views profoundly.

That Alito, Thomas etc should be above reproach even when concerning behaviors come to light.

Because something is legal, it is not a big deal. Graft doesn't have to legal for it to be graft. In fact, I'd say graft is most often legal. That is what a lot of lobbying is.

That tradition will hold. We have already seen a willingness to throw it away. That will only get worse.

That because concerns about SCOTUS are coming loudest from the left, they aren't valid. That is usually where criticism first comes from in politics; ideological opponents. The concerns should be considered on their merits. It's fair to keep in mind political bias, but that isn't a good reason to ignore it or outright dismiss it.

I'm afraid the public is becoming less skilled sorting through media for bias and accuracy. Bias exists everywhere but that doesn't mean accuracy is equally bad or the reporting is equally professional. Neither CNN or MSNBC paid nearly a billion dollars for libel like Fox News did. Tweets and Facebook posts are not news especially when it comes from "influencers." Ben Shapiro has no interests in the truth. He is interested in money and advancing his causes. Tucker Carlson is attached to Putin's teet. Other organizations attach making money to accuracy.

[USUC]

Bought and paid for

https://www.thenation.com/article/so...rt-power-grab/

Laughable. You guys who think Trump is an existential threat sure want to ensure he has the most power possible at his fingertips.

[USUC]

We can vote presidents in or out based on their ideas for how executive branch agencies are implementing rules. That's not trivial. It's a crucial right. Congress can also change rules but the supreme court seems to think it can just throw out what it doesn't like while at the same time blaming Congress. How convenient.

Interpreting and manufacturing rules. And no, it's no longer a right they have (except for all cases already ruled under the Chevron deference).

[frank ryan]

Laughable. You guys who think Trump is an existential threat sure want to ensure he has the most power possible at his fingertips.

Thinking Trump is an existential threat is anything but laughable. He tried to overthrow and election and worked up a scheme to seize power. He talks about becoming a dictator. He talks about sabatoging important military and diplomatic relationships. He intends to pardon the violent coup-attempters and calls them patriots.

He wasn't recommended for prosecution due to his interactions with Russia but he wasn't exonerated from being influenced or being compromised.


With due respect, Trump has shown us who is. Expecting him to be restrained is naive.

I think he will win regardless of how the debate could've gone.

He has been held civilly liable for sexual assault and is a convicted felon. I'd rather have someone who is slower in charge of the nuclear football that a person who is genuinely sociopathic and incapable of shame.

That's all far far worse.

[BlueK]

Interpreting and manufacturing rules. And no, it's no longer a right they have (except for all cases already ruled under the Chevron deference).

I said it was the right of the citizens to vote presidents in and out based on how executive branch agencies which were established by congress are operating under that president.

[BlueK]

Laughable. You guys who think Trump is an existential threat sure want to ensure he has the most power possible at his fingertips.

The article Max posted isn't about Trump. Agree with its conclusions or not, it makes reasoned arguments and I think raises legitimate concerns about powers the court is assuming, even in negating what Congress does.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So overturning a ruling that was made in 1984 is "the biggest power grab since 1804"? Oh brother.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think this latest one will be vastly more important. Chevron was one of the most often cited cases ever. And now it’s gone. The significance of that action would be hard to overstate.

Please go on. What do think will happen going forward?

[Moliere]

Is the argument that agencies should have these powers simply because they are more efficient?

Because they have experts and Congress has always been a mess with regulation. When regulation goes overboard, then lawsuits are filed and it gets worked out. That process seems to work fine to this point.

[Shaka]

Because they have experts and Congress has always been a mess with regulation. When regulation goes overboard, then lawsuits are filed and it gets worked out. That process seems to work fine to this point.

It's not a process and the issues take far too much money and time getting worked out. Only major players can afford to take on the government in this manner and it shouldn't be that way.

[All-American]

Please go on. What do think will happen going forward?

A massive shift of power away from the executive branch and toward the other branches. One can debate whether it flows mostly to judicial or legislative. I think in the short run, this will seem like it primarily empowers the judiciary, and toward the legislature in the long run.

But anybody who thinks the old regime, under which the agency itself got to decide how much power it has and was entitled to deference in that decision even if the court thought it wrong, was not problematic … I mean, I can’t agree with that.

The post-chevron world should also be more stable. Take one issue discussed in the opinion: net neutrality. Under Bush, the FCC was against it. Under Obama, it was for it. It switched again with Trump, and again with Biden. Each administration interpreted the statutes as they desired, and the court had to accept each interpretation because, Chevron. Statutes don’t change with elections; they change with legislation. This decision reflects that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

A massive shift of power away from the executive branch and toward the other branches. One can debate whether it flows mostly to judicial or legislative. I think in the short run, this will seem like it primarily empowers the judiciary, and toward the legislature in the long run.

But anybody who thinks the old regime, under which the agency itself got to decide how much power it has and was entitled to deference in that decision even if the court thought it wrong, was not problematic … I mean, I can’t agree with that.

The post-chevron world should also be more stable. Take one issue discussed in the opinion: net neutrality. Under Bush, the FCC was against it. Under Obama, it was for it. It switched again with Trump, and again with Biden. Each administration interpreted the statutes as they desired, and the court had to accept each interpretation because, Chevron. Statutes don’t change with elections; they change with legislation. This decision reflects that.

Very interesting. Thank you.

[Copelius]

I have always thought that Congress could fix a lot of the issues which are complained about as agency overreach by simply amending the APA to require a weekly, mandatory up/down vote by both houses at a set time for the federal register that either approves or sends each agency back to the drawing board.

My biggest issue with Chevron was that it applied when some part of the agency empowerment was ambiguous. As I understand the teeth gnashers, the new standard of review just allows the courts to insert their judgment in lieu of an agency when something is ambiguous. The up/down vote by Congress would unambiguously establish whether an agency is following what the critters intended with their enabling statute.

For those who say that the Mike Lees of the world will always vote no just because of the wanker that he is, I say that it is up to the journalists of the world and each local community to hold these critters accountable for each yes/no vote, so that each critter can be held to account by his/her constituency. Now, if a constituency is not up to educating itself and holding their elected critters accountable, then the country is already beyond hope and it really doesn't matter if an agency, a congress, or a court makes a decision on some ambiguous piece of legislation.

Or maybe Congress could not write ambiguous laws!!!