End of Chevron doctrine

[jesmu84]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-upends-long-standing-precedent-power-federal/story?id=111405252

Seems bad.

Thoughts?

[Uncle Rico]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-upends-long-standing-precedent-power-federal/story?id=111405252

Seems bad.

Thoughts?

Excellent news.  I trust corporations to act in the best interest of local communities and the environment.  Nothing in the past leads me to believe they won't.

[Pakuni]

Excellent news.  I trust corporations to act in the best interest of local communities and the environment.  Nothing in the past leads me to believe they won't.

If a corporation poisons your groundwater,, you should have chosen somewhere else to live.

But fear not, our effective Congress will figure this out.

Harlan Crow spent wisely, it seems.

[Hards Alumni]

If a corporation poisons your groundwater,, you should have chosen somewhere else to live.

But fear not, out effective Congress will figure this out.

Harlan Crow spent wisely, it seems.

Lemonis could have Thomas under his thumb, annually, but chose Marquette instead.

[MUBurrow]

Its just another instance of wrecking something without any consideration or care for what replaces it.  For all the boogeymanning of the "administrative state" the world is too varied and complicated a place to function without deference to educated and experienced institutions.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

IBTL unelected judges know better than lifelong studies of a topic

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

My water tastes too clean

[Warriors4ever]

Lots of discussion in a lawyers FB group I am in about how large the backlog will be in District Court, how to advise clients, how this affects lawyers trying to advise companies on actually doing the right thing, and how patent cases will now be heard by judges with Art History degrees. Also about how one of the goals is enabling a new  attack on the FDA approval of the abortion drug.

[GB Warrior]

If you think about it, an originalist's interpretation of precedent is that originally there were no precedents

[Jockey]

Lots of discussion in a lawyers FB group I am in about how large the backlog will be in District Court, how to advise clients, how this affects lawyers trying to advise companies on actually doing the right thing, and how patent cases will now be heard by judges with Art History degrees. Also about how one of the goals is enabling a new  attack on the FDA approval of the abortion drug.

Bingo.

[pbiflyer]

https://x.com/stemthebleeding/status/1806736315976749511?s=61&t=jsIZllSIAp6Fe-FmvZNVnw

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

If you think about it, an originalist's interpretation of precedent is that originally there were no precedents

This is basically the jist of an article in The Atlantic this week that the originalist theory should permanently be killed off because it's self defeating.  Any law can be struck down because a judge can make up something "original".  The theory says constitutional amendments are needed to fix but made up "originalist" things circumvents the whole theory.

[MU82]

Folks interpret "originalist" however necessary to justify whatever they want to justify, or ignore it entirely if that's more convenient.

In that respect, it's kind of like religion.

[Heisenberg]

For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference (not Doctrine) is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it:

A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.

The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013.

Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?

Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law.

So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.

It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country.

It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired.

No law gave them that authority, they just made it up.

It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun".

It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands".

It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts".

Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go.

That's what Chevron Deference was.

It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone.

Thankfully, it's now gone.

We haven't even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we'll all be better of for it.

And that's why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.

[NCMUFan]

Thank you Not a Serious Person.

[Pakuni]

Thank you Not a Serious Person.

As with most things here, he's got it wrong.
And again, a "conservative" majority shows no deference for decades of settled law.

[Heisenberg]

As with most things here, he's got it wrong.
And again, a "conservative" majority shows no deference for decades of settled law.

What is settled law? Once a court decides something, it can never ever change.  So, you must also think that the Dred Scott decision was wrong to reverse. After all, it was settled law in 1857.

And while you are defining made-up terms. What is Chevron Doctrine?

[MUBurrow]

And while you are defining made-up terms. What is Chevron Doctrine?

Nope, you got it man. Your outline was correct, not politically motivated, and no doubt comes after years of study of administrative law and careful consideration. 10/10 no notes, we can shut down the thread.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference (not Doctrine) is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it:

A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company.

The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013.

Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization?

Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law.

So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it.

It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country.

It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired.

No law gave them that authority, they just made it up.

It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun".

It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands".

It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts".

Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go.

That's what Chevron Deference was.

It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone.

Thankfully, it's now gone.

We haven't even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we'll all be better of for it.

And that's why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.

For those wondering, Heisy did not write this. He stole it from Spike Cohen and presented it without credit to try and make himself appear smart. If you don't remember Spike Cohen, he ran as a vice presidential candidate on the same ticket as Vermin Supreme, a performance artist known for wearing a boot on his head. He later dumped Vermin for Jo Jennings, the 2020 Libertarian presidential candidate.

https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1807513128479150478

I'm not going to go line by line, but I will mention the biggest omission in Heisy's plagiarism is the word "reasonable" before "interpretation". Chevron did give a lot of power to agencies but there were limits on it that the judiciary could enforce. Agencies' regulations could and regularly were challenged in court and the judiciary had the power to (and regularly did) reign in agencies when they overstepped. Spike/Heisy tried to make it sound like agencies were just making things up with no limits when that wasn't the case (I mean seriously. Spike compares it to being arrested with no judge or jury when judges literally could stop agencies who overstepped their mandates).

And Heisy, I know you are trying to make yourself seem smart by criticizing the use of the term chevron doctrine. Chevron deference is a doctrine and Chevron deference is often shortened to just Chevron.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

For those wondering, Heisy did not write this. He stole it from Spike Cohen and presented it without credit to try and make himself appear smart. If you don't remember Spike Cohen, he ran as a vice presidential candidate on the same ticket as Vermin Supreme, a performance artist known for wearing a boot on his head. He later dumped Vermin for Jo Jennings, the 2020 Libertarian presidential candidate.

https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1807513128479150478

I'm not going to go line by line, but I will mention the biggest omission in Heisy's plagiarism is the word "reasonable" before "interpretation". Chevron did give a lot of power to agencies but there were limits on it that the judiciary could enforce. Agencies' regulations could and regularly were challenged in court and the judiciary had the power to (and regularly did) reign in agencies when they overstepped. Spike/Heisy tried to make it sound like agencies were just making things up with no limits when that wasn't the case (I mean seriously. Spike compares it to being arrested with no judge or jury when judges literally could stop agencies who overstepped their mandates).

And Heisy, I know you are trying to make yourself seem smart by criticizing the use of the term chevron doctrine. Chevron deference is a doctrine and Chevron deference is often shortened to just Chevron.

I hope Heisey isn't Ivy League affiliated, we might have an issue if so

[MU82]

For those wondering, Heisy did not write this. He stole it from Spike Cohen and presented it without credit to try and make himself appear smart. If you don't remember Spike Cohen, he ran as a vice presidential candidate on the same ticket as Vermin Supreme, a performance artist known for wearing a boot on his head. He later dumped Vermin for Jo Jennings, the 2020 Libertarian presidential candidate.

https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1807513128479150478

I'm not going to go line by line, but I will mention the biggest omission in Heisy's plagiarism is the word "reasonable" before "interpretation". Chevron did give a lot of power to agencies but there were limits on it that the judiciary could enforce. Agencies' regulations could and regularly were challenged in court and the judiciary had the power to (and regularly did) reign in agencies when they overstepped. Spike/Heisy tried to make it sound like agencies were just making things up with no limits when that wasn't the case (I mean seriously. Spike compares it to being arrested with no judge or jury when judges literally could stop agencies who overstepped their mandates).

And Heisy, I know you are trying to make yourself seem smart by criticizing the use of the term chevron doctrine. Chevron deference is a doctrine and Chevron deference is often shortened to just Chevron.

Huh. Who could have ever predicted that Douchey would plagiarize, mislead and elevate the thoughts of a clueless dope, all in one bold stroke?

[Uncle Rico]

But what does Simon Charles have to say about it?

[jesmu84]

For those wondering, Heisy did not write this. He stole it from Spike Cohen and presented it without credit to try and make himself appear smart. If you don't remember Spike Cohen, he ran as a vice presidential candidate on the same ticket as Vermin Supreme, a performance artist known for wearing a boot on his head. He later dumped Vermin for Jo Jennings, the 2020 Libertarian presidential candidate.

https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1807513128479150478

I'm not going to go line by line, but I will mention the biggest omission in Heisy's plagiarism is the word "reasonable" before "interpretation". Chevron did give a lot of power to agencies but there were limits on it that the judiciary could enforce. Agencies' regulations could and regularly were challenged in court and the judiciary had the power to (and regularly did) reign in agencies when they overstepped. Spike/Heisy tried to make it sound like agencies were just making things up with no limits when that wasn't the case (I mean seriously. Spike compares it to being arrested with no judge or jury when judges literally could stop agencies who overstepped their mandates).

And Heisy, I know you are trying to make yourself seem smart by criticizing the use of the term chevron doctrine. Chevron deference is a doctrine and Chevron deference is often shortened to just Chevron.

L

O

L

[The Sultan]

Huh. Who could have ever predicted that Douchey would plagiarize, mislead and elevate the thoughts of a clueless dope, all in one bold stroke?

<all of Scoop raises their hands simultaneously>

[lawdog77]

Yay! More litigation!