Bye-bye Chevron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait until lawyers have to make decisions on the safety and efficacy of our medicine that require PhD level understanding of drug safety, biostatistics, clinical science, biochemistry, drug metabolism, immunology, genetics, veterinarian medicine, among a plethora of other technical knowledge. Lol, ask a lawyer how many hours they've spent in lab handling and working with something like a CRISPR gene editor. We are going to rely on a bunch of no knowledge legal buffoons that have zero background in engineering or science to make absolutely critical decisions that could impact the safety of the entire world around us.


The nightmare scenarios have no limits. Imagine lawyers and judges getting it wrong for something like crop biotechnology that proposed gene editing to make more disease resistant plants. Oopssie, they idiot lawyers and judges with no scientific knowledge end up allowing a company to let a gene modified organism out into the wild and it causes a gene drive that ends up wiping out all native species and ends up failing as a crop. It would be a catastrophe for food supplies or for so many other plants. So many other nightmare scenarios can happen where you approve some kind of genetic medicine that gets into the wild and spreads throughout the propulsion on the planet because some idiot judge or lawyer that approved the product had zero technical expertise to even be able to adequate evaluate the risks for biocontaiment.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. This is literally how we get Children of Men in real life. A gene therapy that can replicate gets out because some idiot had the idea that it would be great to treat a disease, a stupid judge with no scientific education allows it to proceed, and the therapy ends up being shed into the wild where it ends up having unforeseen consequences like making people sterile.

Gene Therapy
AI

I can think of a thousand scenarios where having non-SME's crafting rules being a nightmare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, it’s totally cool. All this will result in is that Congress will actually have to be subject matter experts and account for any variances or unknowns when they craft laws, since they can’t defer to subject matter experts at agencies any more. I’m sure they’ll ensure the appropriate levels of particulate matter are filtered out in our tap water or whatever. It’s not like lobbyists will be involved.

That sounds much better than being ruled by unelected “subject matter experts”. How long before you start pushing for philosopher kings? How long have you hated democracy? How long have you held such contempt for the people of the United States of America?

Uh, do you know the professions and expertise of our elected officials?

Do you want Jim Jordan writing water policy?
Or Matt Gaetz crafting regulation for particulates in fertilizer?
Or Marge Greene opining on the gauge width electric charging tubes?

I would rather have idiots who are accountable to the voters writing laws than unelected subject matter experts who are also given deference by the court system. The latter simply turns into an unaccountable super state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regulations are liability protection by specifying the minimum requirements to comply with a law. Most regulatory agencies are friendly to the industry they regulate because interest groups and friendly Members of the House and Senate make it so.

Whatever companies save by negating regulations, they will spend much more on attorneys and end up with uncertain and changing requirements dictated by various court cases. There won’t be no rules. There will be a jumble of case-by-case rules.

So much this.

Plus, won't all those agency folks that write regulations just switch over to being expert witnesses to explain things in court to judges?

Regulations are guidance about laws -- and without regulations, judges will still want guidance for statutory interpretation. The idea that getting rid of Chevron will be a means to dismantle agencies seems like a bizzaro fantasy.

And instead of having one nationwide regulation subject to notice and comment from the public, there will be various court decisions that could be all over the place without any opportunity for public review and comment before those decisions are released and inforced.

Great jobs program for attorneys and judges!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, it’s totally cool. All this will result in is that Congress will actually have to be subject matter experts and account for any variances or unknowns when they craft laws, since they can’t defer to subject matter experts at agencies any more. I’m sure they’ll ensure the appropriate levels of particulate matter are filtered out in our tap water or whatever. It’s not like lobbyists will be involved.

That sounds much better than being ruled by unelected “subject matter experts”. How long before you start pushing for philosopher kings? How long have you hated democracy? How long have you held such contempt for the people of the United States of America?

We get it. You hate government overreach (however you define it). You’re defacto willing go without environmental protection out of spite. An inability to defer to subject matter experts at agencies, where a statue is unclear, such as on something as trivial that might have serious ramifications or cause negative extremely bad health effects doesn’t bother you because “mah freedom” is at stake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, it’s totally cool. All this will result in is that Congress will actually have to be subject matter experts and account for any variances or unknowns when they craft laws, since they can’t defer to subject matter experts at agencies any more. I’m sure they’ll ensure the appropriate levels of particulate matter are filtered out in our tap water or whatever. It’s not like lobbyists will be involved.

That sounds much better than being ruled by unelected “subject matter experts”. How long before you start pushing for philosopher kings? How long have you hated democracy? How long have you held such contempt for the people of the United States of America?

Uh, do you know the professions and expertise of our elected officials?

Do you want Jim Jordan writing water policy?
Or Matt Gaetz crafting regulation for particulates in fertilizer?
Or Marge Greene opining on the gauge width electric charging tubes?

I would rather have idiots who are accountable to the voters writing laws than unelected subject matter experts who are also given deference by the court system. The latter simply turns into an unaccountable super state.

You know this will create more bureaucratic gridlock than it solves, right?

I wonder, after the corporate SC shills strike this down, if blue states will just band together and say “we adopt whatever the EU standards are”. That would be awesome. Less fking blue 40 and red 42 dyes in our skittles.

Either way, I can’t get behind your idiotic platitudes. It’s like you think you’re don Quixote fighting the imaginary windmill of qualified experts at agencies who somehow want to tell YOU how to live and that YOU don’t have the right to drink lead in your water. No one is going to tell YOU anything. lol. You know 25% of Americans have an iq of 85 or less? It explains a lot. Also, propaganda works.

[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.

"Burdensome regulation" hasn't just materialized out of thin air. It came about as a result of industry abuses. And likely not just one problem actor, but a whole series of them over the course of decades which have typically caused millions in damages and/or serious injury/loss of human life et cetera.

You might not have physical regulators onsite, but you do still have monitoring and compliance requirements.

While it seems excessive to have someone aboard the ship, that could have been remedied by other means, such as requiring camera feeds or other means of gathering the data necessary to meet the regulatory compliance requirement.

But instead this seems to have just been a deliberate, well-funded, well-orchestrated cynical right wing move to take a blunt hatchet to government and regulation altogether.

So much for conservatives believing in "rule of law." Instead, they attack regulations, they attack government, they attack taxation and revenue to keep our government running, they preach nonsense about "government small enough to drown in a bathtub." That kind of thinking will rapidly reduce America to being a third-world country like Somalia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regulations are liability protection by specifying the minimum requirements to comply with a law. Most regulatory agencies are friendly to the industry they regulate because interest groups and friendly Members of the House and Senate make it so.

Whatever companies save by negating regulations, they will spend much more on attorneys and end up with uncertain and changing requirements dictated by various court cases. There won’t be no rules. There will be a jumble of case-by-case rules.

So much this.

Plus, won't all those agency folks that write regulations just switch over to being expert witnesses to explain things in court to judges?

Regulations are guidance about laws -- and without regulations, judges will still want guidance for statutory interpretation. The idea that getting rid of Chevron will be a means to dismantle agencies seems like a bizzaro fantasy.

And instead of having one nationwide regulation subject to notice and comment from the public, there will be various court decisions that could be all over the place without any opportunity for public review and comment before those decisions are released and inforced.

Great jobs program for attorneys and judges!

Oh right, as if judges have the mental capacity to understand something like the alpha and power of a clinical trial, false discovery rate for disease test, or the intricacies of genetic toxicology when hearing a court case over whether some pharma company’s drug or tech should be approved. Newsflash: corporations will always find an ‘expert witness’ to support their side no matter how much of a trash argument or data they have. You want to rely on a judge who has never had science or engineering training to make a decision on science and engineering ideas that could profoundly harm the entire planet?


It’d be like taking a random Joe Schmo off the street who has had an office job their whole life and then getting a master electrician to explain to them in minute detail how to do electrical work for a commercial building. You then gotta trust that the Schmo off the street could interpret everything the master electrician told them and then rely on the Schmo to wire the building.

Completely insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, it’s totally cool. All this will result in is that Congress will actually have to be subject matter experts and account for any variances or unknowns when they craft laws, since they can’t defer to subject matter experts at agencies any more. I’m sure they’ll ensure the appropriate levels of particulate matter are filtered out in our tap water or whatever. It’s not like lobbyists will be involved.

That sounds much better than being ruled by unelected “subject matter experts”. How long before you start pushing for philosopher kings? How long have you hated democracy? How long have you held such contempt for the people of the United States of America?

Uh, do you know the professions and expertise of our elected officials?

Do you want Jim Jordan writing water policy?
Or Matt Gaetz crafting regulation for particulates in fertilizer?
Or Marge Greene opining on the gauge width electric charging tubes?

I would rather have idiots who are accountable to the voters writing laws than unelected subject matter experts who are also given deference by the court system. The latter simply turns into an unaccountable super state.

You know this will create more bureaucratic gridlock than it solves, right?

I wonder, after the corporate SC shills strike this down, if blue states will just band together and say “we adopt whatever the EU standards are”. That would be awesome. Less fking blue 40 and red 42 dyes in our skittles.

Either way, I can’t get behind your idiotic platitudes. It’s like you think you’re don Quixote fighting the imaginary windmill of qualified experts at agencies who somehow want to tell YOU how to live and that YOU don’t have the right to drink lead in your water. No one is going to tell YOU anything. lol. You know 25% of Americans have an iq of 85 or less? It explains a lot. Also, propaganda works.

I don't think people understand that removing an agency's authority to having binding legislative interpretation just means that judges end up having to endlessly interpret that statute. Those allowable levels of pollution that EPA arrived at after interpreting the clean air act and clean water act? Industry may decide to ignore them and pollute more. The states and environmental activists may also decide to ignore them and go after businesses in compliance with current regulation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the problem is that 98 percent of Americans don't understand the significance of this. so very few people care.

They'll care in a few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, it’s totally cool. All this will result in is that Congress will actually have to be subject matter experts and account for any variances or unknowns when they craft laws, since they can’t defer to subject matter experts at agencies any more. I’m sure they’ll ensure the appropriate levels of particulate matter are filtered out in our tap water or whatever. It’s not like lobbyists will be involved.

That sounds much better than being ruled by unelected “subject matter experts”. How long before you start pushing for philosopher kings? How long have you hated democracy? How long have you held such contempt for the people of the United States of America?

We get it. You hate government overreach (however you define it). You’re defacto willing go without environmental protection out of spite. An inability to defer to subject matter experts at agencies, where a statue is unclear, such as on something as trivial that might have serious ramifications or cause negative extremely bad health effects doesn’t bother you because “mah freedom” is at stake.

We get it. You hate democracy. You’re defacto willing to implement unaccountable philosopher kings out of spite. Overriding our constitutional systems of checks and balances to put into place an unelected, unaccountable set of rulers doesn’t bother you because “mah safety” is at stake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, it’s totally cool. All this will result in is that Congress will actually have to be subject matter experts and account for any variances or unknowns when they craft laws, since they can’t defer to subject matter experts at agencies any more. I’m sure they’ll ensure the appropriate levels of particulate matter are filtered out in our tap water or whatever. It’s not like lobbyists will be involved.

That sounds much better than being ruled by unelected “subject matter experts”. How long before you start pushing for philosopher kings? How long have you hated democracy? How long have you held such contempt for the people of the United States of America?

Uh, do you know the professions and expertise of our elected officials?

Do you want Jim Jordan writing water policy?
Or Matt Gaetz crafting regulation for particulates in fertilizer?
Or Marge Greene opining on the gauge width electric charging tubes?

I would rather have idiots who are accountable to the voters writing laws than unelected subject matter experts who are also given deference by the court system. The latter simply turns into an unaccountable super state.

The executive branch already is accountable. All regulations and rulemakings fall within scope of existing law passed by elected members of Congress, and Congress has oversight, along with several other parts of government which have oversight, such as OIRA for regulatory review, Inspectors General et cetera.

The problem with leaving it up to judges is that the last 4 years have shown that judges can no longer be trusted. And there is currently ZERO accountability in the courts - as demonstrated by the Clarence Thomas debacle.

Your focus is in exactly the wrong place.

[Anonymous]

What’s the difference? There’s nanoplastics in everything anyway. As a species, we won’t exist in 200 years the rate we’re going. What’s a bunch less oversight from SMEs at regulatory agencies going to do anyway? The rest of world is still using coal. Face it, we’re fked. Enjoy the clean air while you can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, it’s totally cool. All this will result in is that Congress will actually have to be subject matter experts and account for any variances or unknowns when they craft laws, since they can’t defer to subject matter experts at agencies any more. I’m sure they’ll ensure the appropriate levels of particulate matter are filtered out in our tap water or whatever. It’s not like lobbyists will be involved.

That sounds much better than being ruled by unelected “subject matter experts”. How long before you start pushing for philosopher kings? How long have you hated democracy? How long have you held such contempt for the people of the United States of America?

Uh, do you know the professions and expertise of our elected officials?

Do you want Jim Jordan writing water policy?
Or Matt Gaetz crafting regulation for particulates in fertilizer?
Or Marge Greene opining on the gauge width electric charging tubes?

I would rather have idiots who are accountable to the voters writing laws than unelected subject matter experts who are also given deference by the court system. The latter simply turns into an unaccountable super state.

You know this will create more bureaucratic gridlock than it solves, right?

I wonder, after the corporate SC shills strike this down, if blue states will just band together and say “we adopt whatever the EU standards are”. That would be awesome. Less fking blue 40 and red 42 dyes in our skittles.

Either way, I can’t get behind your idiotic platitudes. It’s like you think you’re don Quixote fighting the imaginary windmill of qualified experts at agencies who somehow want to tell YOU how to live and that YOU don’t have the right to drink lead in your water. No one is going to tell YOU anything. lol. You know 25% of Americans have an iq of 85 or less? It explains a lot. Also, propaganda works.

You know that elimination of Chevron will simply restore the constitutional check of judicial review, right?

Your contempt for the American voter and the constitutional process is oozing from your post. If political spectrum really is just a horseshoe you may want to take note of just how close you are to the Jan 6 insurrectionists in your contempt for the American voter. The repudiation of Chevron will simply return us to a world where unelected, unaccountable subject matter experts will no longer receive deference from the judicial check on their power.

It really is telling that you are afraid of judicial review. It is almost like you can’t get your political agenda through the normal electoral process. Maybe just do the work of getting the votes you want?

For the record, I am a conservationist. I don’t want lead in water, devastation of wildlife or a long list of other terrible events. But giving deference to unchecked government power is simply not the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, it’s totally cool. All this will result in is that Congress will actually have to be subject matter experts and account for any variances or unknowns when they craft laws, since they can’t defer to subject matter experts at agencies any more. I’m sure they’ll ensure the appropriate levels of particulate matter are filtered out in our tap water or whatever. It’s not like lobbyists will be involved.

That sounds much better than being ruled by unelected “subject matter experts”. How long before you start pushing for philosopher kings? How long have you hated democracy? How long have you held such contempt for the people of the United States of America?

We get it. You hate government overreach (however you define it). You’re defacto willing go without environmental protection out of spite. An inability to defer to subject matter experts at agencies, where a statue is unclear, such as on something as trivial that might have serious ramifications or cause negative extremely bad health effects doesn’t bother you because “mah freedom” is at stake.

We get it. You hate democracy. You’re defacto willing to implement unaccountable philosopher kings out of spite. Overriding our constitutional systems of checks and balances to put into place an unelected, unaccountable set of rulers doesn’t bother you because “mah safety” is at stake.

We get it. You like overused platitudes equating paranoia of government being akin to patriotism. Let me guess who you feel about helping Ukraine. Oh wait, I won’t because you prob are cool with Russia taking it over.

Look you and I both can see the writing on the wall. Chevron doctrine is out. Or gravely weakened to the point of being rendered useless.

You think blue states and common sense folks are just going to lay down and accept little regulation of pollutants? What I’m saying is they’re probably crafting a bunch of strategies to mitigate the loss of the chevron docteine. People want clean water and air.

Just like abortion. People want that. I bet you all get fked at Nov 11 polls because of that. Basically what I’m saying is even if you think you win on your conservative issues you ultimately lose the war later because the arc of justice bends to more liberal policies.

No one is going to just roll over when chevron ia defeated. They’ll come up with a bunch of stuff to help fill the void.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very narrow decision pointing out that making the fisherman pay for the privilege of being inspected is a bridge to far.

Compliance costs come in many forms. I agree they're a necessary evil for the greater good, but it's easy to see the wide-ranging ramifications of a decision in favor of de-regulation.