109
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.”

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ratcliff@lemmy.wtf 15 points 10 months ago

Supreme Court is sending us back to the previous century

[-] theodewere@kbin.social 7 points 10 months ago

it's what the "conservative" judges are getting paid for

[-] derf82@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

The 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.

[-] kreiger@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

rather

whether

[-] rivermonster@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] pacoo2454@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Didn’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.

[-] rivermonster@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
  • 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.

[-] pacoo2454@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago

Spend every day having a press announcement? What’s that going to do when they already decided they weren’t going to give it to him. He had other responsibilities too you know.

Expand ing the court won’t do anything if the senate won’t confirm your nominations.

A court case saying it’s their duty? That doesn’t make sense. The constitution doesn’t say they have to accept his pick. That’s the whole point of checks and balances, right?

Push a case that threatened national security? Are you high? That doesn’t sound like anything a responsible president would do.

Constitution says they have to be confirmed by the senate. He can’t just tell someone to go sit in the empty seat. That’s not how it works. Again, are you high?

While Obama might have been beholden to corporate interests, I think you’re just plain wrong on this one buddy.

this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
109 points (98.2% liked)

News

23275 readers
1331 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS