Bye-bye Chevron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Please just take a step back for one second. You don’t see the inherent conflict and problem with the party that enforces the rules also interpreting them? And then that party gets deference in its interpretations from the judicial branch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

lol “conservationist” in the narrow sense that you fell hunting grounds in national parks should be allowed or some such variant.

Otherwise, your posts are just spouting some cliche Newsmax quotes about the constitution.

[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.

Dp- without regulation and oversight, someone is getting sucked out the blown-out door of a Boeing. And I will pray every night that person is you, anonymous poster.
Amen.

[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?

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.

Dp- without regulation and oversight, someone is getting sucked out the blown-out door of a Boeing. And I will pray every night that person is you, anonymous poster.
Amen.

It’s my constitutional RIGHT to get sucked out of a Boeing! And no needle nose, fed “expert” bureaucrat is gonna tell me it’s not healthy!!! You hate America! Down with subject matter experts!

[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.

Instead, we will have the 50 states and DC, PR etc all with their own laws and rules with businesses having to play 'whack a mole' to keep up with them. Believe it or not, national and international businesses prefer the surety of one set of national rules as it is easier to manage. So while you seem to believe in some sort of nefarious "super state," here on planet earth, we understand that having a single set of rules and regulations makes national compliance easier and more dependable.

[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.

Instead, we will have the 50 states and DC, PR etc all with their own laws and rules with businesses having to play 'whack a mole' to keep up with them. Believe it or not, national and international businesses prefer the surety of one set of national rules as it is easier to manage. So while you seem to believe in some sort of nefarious "super state," here on planet earth, we understand that having a single set of rules and regulations makes national compliance easier and more dependable.

He did not know that. He is just a good ol constitution loving Murican and yer not gonna tell him different! These colors don’t run! Hot dogs! Judicial reform! Derp derp.

[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.

The agencies are subject to the check voters - the President of the United States who appoints the heads of agencies. They can rescind regulations, reinterpret ambiguities in statutes, adopt new regulations, etc.

The problem I see is that those opposed to Chevron don't want to do the hard work of proposing new regulations. They want the Supreme Court - by fiat - to throw out all these regs, even if they were properly introduced by previous executive branch Administrations. There is nothing "democratic" about the Supreme Court ruling by fiat.

[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.

Instead, we will have the 50 states and DC, PR etc all with their own laws and rules with businesses having to play 'whack a mole' to keep up with them. Believe it or not, national and international businesses prefer the surety of one set of national rules as it is easier to manage. So while you seem to believe in some sort of nefarious "super state," here on planet earth, we understand that having a single set of rules and regulations makes national compliance easier and more dependable.

State level enforcement is optimistic. For laws with private rights of action (i.e. the clean water act and the clean air act), once you remove the ability of the federal government to set guide rails via regulation, every plaintiff gets to take a stab at statutory interpretation. If they're a good enough writer or if they get a sympathetic judge, then that's the standard. But only for that plaintiff and that defendant

[Anonymous]

Congress is going to have to work harder. There are far too many laws. You need AI just to know what they are. There are so many laws that every single person has broken them and they don’t even know it. Everybody can be sent to jail. Whoever the government wants to get they can jail. It’s broken and anti American

[Anonymous]

This is a reaction to liberals taking advantage of Chevron to write laws without a vote of Congress, calling it an interpretation of a law to which the courts must provide deference.

Previously when they lost at the Supreme Court the EPA bragged it was too late the changes had taken effect and couldn't be reversed. This caused the Supreme Court to throw out the Clean Power Plan with a stay before the case could be heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a reaction to liberals taking advantage of Chevron to write laws without a vote of Congress, calling it an interpretation of a law to which the courts must provide deference.

Previously when they lost at the Supreme Court the EPA bragged it was too late the changes had taken effect and couldn't be reversed. This caused the Supreme Court to throw out the Clean Power Plan with a stay before the case could be heard.

Chevron came about due to a change by Reaganite Republicans at the EPA to make it easier for polluting factories to make changes to a factory without having to get explicit permission from the EPA.

Literally, it was FedSoc lawyers in the Reagan Administration who argued for the Chevron deference.

Now? Those same FedSoc lawyers want to undo the standard they helped create.

It's absolutely incredible and gob smacking. Chevron has nothing to do with "liberals." It was a creation of Reaganites who wanted to ease regulations on polluters.

[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?

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.

Dp- without regulation and oversight, someone is getting sucked out the blown-out door of a Boeing. And I will pray every night that person is you, anonymous poster.
Amen.

Didn't that happen under the current regulatory process? What happened to the SME responsible for that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Please just take a step back for one second. You don’t see the inherent conflict and problem with the party that enforces the rules also interpreting them? And then that party gets deference in its interpretations from the judicial branch?

That's fine. I wonder how refinery owners will like defending god knows how many lawsuits each arguing a different standard for allowable air pollution without being able to point to any definitive rule that says their admissions fall without an allowable range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a reaction to liberals taking advantage of Chevron to write laws without a vote of Congress, calling it an interpretation of a law to which the courts must provide deference.

Previously when they lost at the Supreme Court the EPA bragged it was too late the changes had taken effect and couldn't be reversed. This caused the Supreme Court to throw out the Clean Power Plan with a stay before the case could be heard.

The laws explicitly delegate rule making authority to agencies. I guess congress has to get around to actually legislating now. The CFR is about 185,000 pages- I'm sure Congress will have fun pouting through it to approve or disapprove

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems the judges reviewing the case need a history lesson - they should go back and look at the Reagan years as a lesson, and how Reagan and his appointees like James Watt, Anne Gorsuch and others made a similar deregulatory push and massively gutted regulatory capability of several agencies - and it led to massive backlash and complete lack of trust from the public. It was so bad that even industry was begging to bring back regulation, resulting in Watt, Gorsuch and others being replaced.