The Supreme Court weakens federal regulators, overturning decades-old Chevron decision

yeah, I think that's partly a naive view. This is why there is such growing and widespread concern about the "deep state" so-called. You have career bureaucrats, regulators, and agency personnel who substitute their own personal partisan political views for the statutory will of Congressionally-enacted law. Loper Bright is a great example: despite the Administrative Procedure Act being the statutory law of the land since 1946, the freedom that Chevron afforded regulatory agencies to "create their own administrative law" goes exactly against the stated, Congressionally-enacted guidance provided for in the APA. That's just an empirical reality, one that courts over the past 40 years have increasingly had to face. That puts both courts AND agencies in an untenable position: to make sense of something that doesn't make sense. So again, here is where I believe the Roberts Court is willing to accept the social and political consequences of a period of upheaval (or however Kagan put it) over the short term in order to effect a longer term legal solution to a huge problem. (And again, the social/political parallels to the Dobbs/Roe v. Wade decision are pretty obvious.)

 

I'll agree to just disagree with most of it. But I think the biggest cause of the problem special interests writing legislation has to do with the idea that money is free speech.

 

The previous (unanimous) SC ruling occurred when the APA was law, so it was in spite of it.

Congress can always write laws that are more precise and with less ambiguity, and they can also include restrictions. By writing laws with ambiguity on purpose after Chevron, Congress clearly left it to the agencies to decide. Roberts says those will not be impacted by this ruling, which seems nonsensical.

 

After reading the entire ruling I'm not as concerned as I was before. I think we'll be ok long term, in the short there will be a ton of litigation by the wealthy of course but we'll make it through. It does seem like a power grab for the courts IMO but I'm not a lawyer and the only thing we can do at this point is vote. Thank God the state legislatures don't appoint senators anymore...so on to reading more about the APA...

 

kudos for reading the entire ruling

 

I would also add that agencies often, if not always, seek public input before making new changes (new regulations). Any of us can provide input relatively easily. I doubt the general public even knows what an amicus brief is to provide input to the court. I have no doubt the big guns all have lawyers to influence the court. The courts are not experts and will be influenced by those with the largest resources. This shift in power to the courts effectively also shifts power away from the general public to special powerful interests on all matters, small to large.

 

I like Matt Stoller's anti Monopoly substack. He writes cleanly and purposefully, explaining proper context, politcal reasoning, and how it impacts his particular interest - Monopolies in Corportaions.

Posting his write up for people interested supporting him. I knew about the impacts from Mitch McConnell's rat**** flooding of lifetime Con judges but couldn't articulate it as keenly as this writeup.



Last two paragraphs in this post should be read if not all.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-146093234

Thomas is a piece of work...

 

2nd half

 

one other thing occurred to me about this idea of "they could vote out the executives and lawmakers for a change." I think there's a blindspot here about agencies that are cabinet-level executive branch agencies versus independent agencies. There's probably just as many independent agencies as cabinet-level ones.

And independent agencies do not necessarily guarantee less partisanship or greater effectiveness than cabinet-level agencies. Here's a recent article in the Cornell Law Review that speaks to that issue. Not paywalled so anyone should be able to read it.

https://www.cornelllawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CRN601.pdf

 

Never heard of him, thx for sharing. This was similar to what I thought yesterday - "By writing laws with ambiguity on purpose after Chevron, Congress clearly left it to the agencies to decide. Roberts says those will not be impacted by this ruling, which seems nonsensical."

"Chevron Deference, however, wasn’t just a mechanism to implement a certain agenda, it was also a value neutral process change to move power from courts to agencies. And it is deeply embedded in policymaking. Since 1984, Congress has passed hundreds if not thousands of laws, under the assumption that agencies implementing those laws had the ability to execute them even if there was ambiguity or the law was silent on a certain detail. And many agencies and courts have built their rule-making and litigation strategies on Chevron Deference, for both significant and insignificant regulations."

 

That is a fair point about the independent agencies. Though I'm not sure about their numbers vs. those of city, state, and Federal.

 

no, good point, there's way more cabinet-level federal agencies for sure

 

Before, I said those who fear a future rogue administration might also like this decision. If Trump wins and he goes dictatorial as we assume he will, y’all might be thanking Roberts.





It’s still a bad decision.

 

The only day I’ll be thanking Roberts is when he is no longer a member of the court.

 

THE GOP are the descendents of people who simply want a KING again.
They want to go back to a simpler time of Royaly/Lords/Knights/Serfs
They are quite fine with being Serfs and working and living for the leisure of their betters
They want the pangentry and the lack of no responsibilities that a Kingdomship would afford them
however
Kingdomships are no longer a thing . .. so they will get the next best thing . . .a dictatorship
A Monarchy with a few more steps . . . .pesky little fraud elections

These people never wanted to leave england . .. or at best wanted to dupicate england here

Rocket River

 

Supporting a case that takes power away from the executive is evidence of wanting a king or dictator? Wouldn't someone that wants a king prefer more power to the executive, less to Congress and the courts?

 

Still trying to understand Roberts' logic. The POTUS can’t regulate for clean air, but he can assassinate Americans he hates with an official act.

 

Expanding the court is the only option. Hard to believe people are celebrating these decisions.

 

yea, i don't know what to say anymore

 

Scrote didn't explicitly allow blanket immunity to the president for criminal acts and they can't disguise it as an official act either.

It's just the bar has been raised to prove intent and the means to prove it has become way more difficult even if Congress were to step in as the court's mythical Check and Balance.

It's not exactly what you're claiming even if the political outcome might be the same.

I'm not a legal geek but their rationale doesn't seem Originalist or what the Founding Fathers Would Do.