Bye-bye Chevron

Anonymous
Pretty much the bedrock of the federal government’s ability to implement laws into regulations.

Judges are new policymakers. Did you ever expect this when you studied Chevron in law school?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme...gSource=articleShare
Anonymous
Yet another reason this country is in decline.
Anonymous
Perhaps the amusing part of this is that republican judges made up the Chevron doctrine because courts were striking down too many of Reagan's deregulatory initiatives. But now it's no longer advancing republican goals, so out it goes.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Pretty much the bedrock of the federal government’s ability to implement laws into regulations.

Judges are new policymakers. Did you ever expect this when you studied Chevron in law school?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme...gSource=articleShare


So will this also do away with patent protection and trade marks?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Pretty much the bedrock of the federal government’s ability to implement laws into regulations.

Judges are new policymakers. Did you ever expect this when you studied Chevron in law school?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme...gSource=articleShare


It is honestly outrageous this is even possible.
This is a BEDROCK of federal law and stare decisis X 1000000.

And now JUDGES are going to set policy? Everyone should be outraged by this, across the political spectrum.
Anonymous
And here I thought a dirty oil polluter had gone out of business lolzzolzoll
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Pretty much the bedrock of the federal government’s ability to implement laws into regulations.

Judges are new policymakers. Did you ever expect this when you studied Chevron in law school?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/17/us/supreme...gSource=articleShare


So will this also do away with patent protection and trade marks?


No.
Anonymous
the problem is that 98 percent of Americans don't understand the significance of this. so very few people care.
Anonymous
The rule of law has been withering for a while
Anonymous
So...on the substance, the fishermen had no recourse to fight a maritime agency’s interpretation of law, since Chevron required courts to give preference to the government, and this lead the fishermen to have to bring government overfishing-regulators ON the boats with them AND pay them $700 a day?

Seems like overly budensome regulation to me.

I work in a highly regulated financial services field where compliance is a constant and important daily consideration, and even we are not forced to try to operate with regulators underfoot everyday, paying them for the disruption to boot.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:So...on the substance, the fishermen had no recourse to fight a maritime agency’s interpretation of law, since Chevron required courts to give preference to the government, and this lead the fishermen to have to bring government overfishing-regulators ON the boats with them AND pay them $700 a day?

Seems like overly budensome regulation to me.

I work in a highly regulated financial services field where compliance is a constant and important daily consideration, and even we are not forced to try to operate with regulators underfoot everyday, paying them for the disruption to boot.


So I'm a lobbyist for these issues and I support what NMFS is doing. First off, observers are NOT required for every trip a fisherman takes. It is a random draw and the fishermen get a 24-48 HOUR notice. Observer coverage is only on 1% of all fishing trips.

if Congress fully funded the observer coverage program, NMFS would not have to consider some of these "draconian" methods. folks are cutting off their livelihood long term. The point of the observer coverage program is to minimize fisheries bycatch. Many fish stocks are overfished and not sustainable at the current rate. When folks fish they often catch species that they do have a permit to catch. Fish don't know boundaries and if you catch a fish that's not within your permit, time is ticking to identify the species and get it back in the water. dead fish can't reproduce. several fisheries across the country are a seeing significant decrease in yield for certain species of fish that we LOVE to eat. It is BECAUSE of government regulation that we can still eat red snapper for example. Red snapper is THE PREMIERE fish in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico region. nearly a billion industry and several jobs. Thanks to NMFS stepping in 10 years ago, this fishery survived and jobs were saved.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:So...on the substance, the fishermen had no recourse to fight a maritime agency’s interpretation of law, since Chevron required courts to give preference to the government, and this lead the fishermen to have to bring government overfishing-regulators ON the boats with them AND pay them $700 a day?

Seems like overly budensome regulation to me.

I work in a highly regulated financial services field where compliance is a constant and important daily consideration, and even we are not forced to try to operate with regulators underfoot everyday, paying them for the disruption to boot.


So I'm a lobbyist for these issues and I support what NMFS is doing. First off, observers are NOT required for every trip a fisherman takes. It is a random draw and the fishermen get a 24-48 HOUR notice. Observer coverage is only on 1% of all fishing trips.

if Congress fully funded the observer coverage program, NMFS would not have to consider some of these "draconian" methods. folks are cutting off their livelihood long term. The point of the observer coverage program is to minimize fisheries bycatch. Many fish stocks are overfished and not sustainable at the current rate. When folks fish they often catch species that they do have a permit to catch. Fish don't know boundaries and if you catch a fish that's not within your permit, time is ticking to identify the species and get it back in the water. dead fish can't reproduce. several fisheries across the country are a seeing significant decrease in yield for certain species of fish that we LOVE to eat. It is BECAUSE of government regulation that we can still eat red snapper for example. Red snapper is THE PREMIERE fish in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico region. nearly a billion industry and several jobs. Thanks to NMFS stepping in 10 years ago, this fishery survived and jobs were saved.


Pp here. Okay - thanks for that context. That was not clear from the times article.
Anonymous
But some agencies were set up to be regulatory agencies. So, some of what these agencies do is to establish regulations, which is not the same as making laws, but the bulk of what they do is to enforce the laws.

Fees and penalties are the means by which they enforce the laws. It is not the job of Congress to enforce the laws they create. In criminal matters, we have the police, and in regulatory matters we have these agencies.
Frankly I do not want my congressperson deciding how many parts per million of a given chemical is allowed in my drinking water, because she cannot possibly be expected to know, say, how much chloramine is safe, how it interacts with cryptosporidium or giardiara in the pipes, the rate at which it evaporates, how much chloramine is released as vapor in the average shower, etc.

I know there is this impression we all have of these regulatory agencies messing with the little guy, and I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but most of what our civil servants do is stuff I'm really glad they are there to do.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:So...on the substance, the fishermen had no recourse to fight a maritime agency’s interpretation of law, since Chevron required courts to give preference to the government, and this lead the fishermen to have to bring government overfishing-regulators ON the boats with them AND pay them $700 a day?

Seems like overly budensome regulation to me.

I work in a highly regulated financial services field where compliance is a constant and important daily consideration, and even we are not forced to try to operate with regulators underfoot everyday, paying them for the disruption to boot.


So I'm a lobbyist for these issues and I support what NMFS is doing. First off, observers are NOT required for every trip a fisherman takes. It is a random draw and the fishermen get a 24-48 HOUR notice. Observer coverage is only on 1% of all fishing trips.

if Congress fully funded the observer coverage program, NMFS would not have to consider some of these "draconian" methods. folks are cutting off their livelihood long term. The point of the observer coverage program is to minimize fisheries bycatch. Many fish stocks are overfished and not sustainable at the current rate. When folks fish they often catch species that they do have a permit to catch. Fish don't know boundaries and if you catch a fish that's not within your permit, time is ticking to identify the species and get it back in the water. dead fish can't reproduce. several fisheries across the country are a seeing significant decrease in yield for certain species of fish that we LOVE to eat. It is BECAUSE of government regulation that we can still eat red snapper for example. Red snapper is THE PREMIERE fish in the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico region. nearly a billion industry and several jobs. Thanks to NMFS stepping in 10 years ago, this fishery survived and jobs were saved.


Isn’t that precisely the problem here? An agency shouldn’t be in the business of “if Congress won’t fund it then we’ll just have do something draconian”, no matter how noble the purpose. What was meant to be a shield for the admin agencies instituted to protect them from judicial system bias has clearly morphed into a sword to go on the offensive. This is why the admin agencies can’t have nice things.
Anonymous

It didn’t take long into the article to learn the Koch foundation was behind this litigation.
post reply Forum Index » Political Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: