Bye-bye Chevron

[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-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=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.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=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.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

And what expertise to judges who were trained in law, have for things like drugs, securities, technology etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean every IRS policy will be subject to the courts?

Yep.

I’m so happy right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this mean every IRS policy will be subject to the courts?

Yep.

I’m so happy right now.

So that everything takes longer? So that we have years-long delays in our federal government?

Okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good bye abortion pills. A conservative's dream: Jesus, guns, babies, no regulations, no taxes. If only Trump has not won in 2016. Welcome to the nightmare.

Trump said last night he was fine with abortion pills.

But he will sign a law passed by a GOP congress banning them.

And then it will go underground. But then GOP not jobs will monitor pregnancies and if no baby in none months, the woman gets arrested. Enjoy your Christofascist nation.

[Anonymous]

Nut jobs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=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.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

Chevron was decided because companies were dealing with vague laws across 50 states and needed clarity. Corporations actually asked for Chevron because it would enable better compliance with the law and unleash economic productivity instead of hiring armies of lawyers to deal with conflicting laws and conflicting rulings with judges in different circuits. In short, Chevron is about economic efficiency. Chevron was good because it created some semblance of consistency across the country.

The Supreme Court - by striking down Chevron - just created a massive stimulus program for lawyers. Legal stimmies, if you will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=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.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

Chevron was decided because companies were dealing with vague laws across 50 states and needed clarity. Corporations actually asked for Chevron because it would enable better compliance with the law and unleash economic productivity instead of hiring armies of lawyers to deal with conflicting laws and conflicting rulings with judges in different circuits. In short, Chevron is about economic efficiency. Chevron was good because it created some semblance of consistency across the country.

The Supreme Court - by striking down Chevron - just created a massive stimulus program for lawyers. Legal stimmies, if you will.

Things go through cycles. We'll get back to Chevron. The question is, will it take 3-8 years or will it take 20-40 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=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.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

Chevron was decided because companies were dealing with vague laws across 50 states and needed clarity. Corporations actually asked for Chevron because it would enable better compliance with the law and unleash economic productivity instead of hiring armies of lawyers to deal with conflicting laws and conflicting rulings with judges in different circuits. In short, Chevron is about economic efficiency. Chevron was good because it created some semblance of consistency across the country.

The Supreme Court - by striking down Chevron - just created a massive stimulus program for lawyers. Legal stimmies, if you will.

So they could buy “experts” and politically appointed decision makers for the outcomes that would benefit them most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=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.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

Chevron was decided because companies were dealing with vague laws across 50 states and needed clarity. Corporations actually asked for Chevron because it would enable better compliance with the law and unleash economic productivity instead of hiring armies of lawyers to deal with conflicting laws and conflicting rulings with judges in different circuits. In short, Chevron is about economic efficiency. Chevron was good because it created some semblance of consistency across the country.

The Supreme Court - by striking down Chevron - just created a massive stimulus program for lawyers. Legal stimmies, if you will.

So they could buy “experts” and politically appointed decision makers for the outcomes that would benefit them most.

Read again, more slowly this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=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.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

Chevron was decided because companies were dealing with vague laws across 50 states and needed clarity. Corporations actually asked for Chevron because it would enable better compliance with the law and unleash economic productivity instead of hiring armies of lawyers to deal with conflicting laws and conflicting rulings with judges in different circuits. In short, Chevron is about economic efficiency. Chevron was good because it created some semblance of consistency across the country.

The Supreme Court - by striking down Chevron - just created a massive stimulus program for lawyers. Legal stimmies, if you will.

So they could buy “experts” and politically appointed decision makers for the outcomes that would benefit them most.

I point you to the Supreme Court corruption thread:
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1129264.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=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.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

And what expertise to judges who were trained in law, have for things like drugs, securities, technology etc?

The hysteria here is ridiculous. It will be same as they had before. Judges are not going to be "writing technical regulations." Even under Chevron, regulations could be challenged as not authorized by law, with *legal* arguments made as to whether the Congress intended to authorize the action taken. The only difference was that the Court had to give deference to the Agency's *legal* interpretation (not necessarily their technical expertise) of the law in question. In the past, even under Chevron, the Court would occasionally find that the agency's action exceeded the scope of the law, but there was a very heavy burden on the entity challenging the regulation. Now, the court can look at the evidence presented as to the appropriate *legal* interpretation offered by both sides, without having to defer to the agency's view. As the opinion states, statutory interpretation is within the purview of the Court.

The only limitation that will occur is on the ability of an agency to decide, fifty years after a law was written, that they can expand the authority of a law to cover something that Congress clearly never intended to be regulated under that law. Under Chevron, the Courts could say, "well, this is a novel interpretation and real stretch to believe the law covers that, but we'll defer to the agency." There will be new things that the Administration wants to do that will require a new law from Congress. That's a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=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.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

Chevron was decided because companies were dealing with vague laws across 50 states and needed clarity. Corporations actually asked for Chevron because it would enable better compliance with the law and unleash economic productivity instead of hiring armies of lawyers to deal with conflicting laws and conflicting rulings with judges in different circuits. In short, Chevron is about economic efficiency. Chevron was good because it created some semblance of consistency across the country.

The Supreme Court - by striking down Chevron - just created a massive stimulus program for lawyers. Legal stimmies, if you will.

So they could buy “experts” and politically appointed decision makers for the outcomes that would benefit them most.

I point you to the Supreme Court corruption thread:
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1129264.page

I point you to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States on which you leftist have shat on with your politically appointed scumbags.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=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.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

And what expertise to judges who were trained in law, have for things like drugs, securities, technology etc?

The hysteria here is ridiculous. It will be same as they had before. Judges are not going to be "writing technical regulations." Even under Chevron, regulations could be challenged as not authorized by law, with *legal* arguments made as to whether the Congress intended to authorize the action taken. The only difference was that the Court had to give deference to the Agency's *legal* interpretation (not necessarily their technical expertise) of the law in question. In the past, even under Chevron, the Court would occasionally find that the agency's action exceeded the scope of the law, but there was a very heavy burden on the entity challenging the regulation. Now, the court can look at the evidence presented as to the appropriate *legal* interpretation offered by both sides, without having to defer to the agency's view. As the opinion states, statutory interpretation is within the purview of the Court.

The only limitation that will occur is on the ability of an agency to decide, fifty years after a law was written, that they can expand the authority of a law to cover something that Congress clearly never intended to be regulated under that law. Under Chevron, the Courts could say, "well, this is a novel interpretation and real stretch to believe the law covers that, but we'll defer to the agency." There will be new things that the Administration wants to do that will require a new law from Congress. That's a good thing.

Ahem. The Supreme Court recently excluded wetlands from the Clean Water Act by reading "adjacent" as not meaning "adjacent". Laws written by Congress were changed by the Court.

That's not a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-court-chevron-case.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Ok0.wcXh.XpnPeh6hJGP8&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=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.

"BEDROCK" since 1984?

Somehow the United States of America managed to survive for over 200 years without the Chevron doctrine. I think we'll be ok.

Judges are not going to "set policy." They will simply review whether or not the policy proposed by the Administration is consistent with the law, without special deference to the opinion of the agency. Ruling on whether something is legal is what Courts do.

Chevron was decided because companies were dealing with vague laws across 50 states and needed clarity. Corporations actually asked for Chevron because it would enable better compliance with the law and unleash economic productivity instead of hiring armies of lawyers to deal with conflicting laws and conflicting rulings with judges in different circuits. In short, Chevron is about economic efficiency. Chevron was good because it created some semblance of consistency across the country.

The Supreme Court - by striking down Chevron - just created a massive stimulus program for lawyers. Legal stimmies, if you will.

You need to dig up your old Conflicts of Laws text book because Chevron has nothing to do with that. Federal law and regulations preempted state laws and regulations (assuming the federal government has occupied the field) before Chevron and they will afterward. All Chevron said is that the Courts must defer to the agency's judgement regarding whether they have complied with federal law. That's it.