Bye-bye Chevron

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Republican judges seem to want to throw the CFRs on the bonfire. What a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There will silence from the pp you are educating. If they return to this thread, it will be in three or four pages once the herd of right wingers, all three of them, has arrived to spam the thread with right wing talking points.

There is nothing with any meaning to the activist judges. They will rule how they want, when they want and then they will reserve the right to change their minds the next minute. John Roberts’ religious tribunal is a farce and history will not be kind to that smarmy dunderhead.

[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.

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.

THIS. This is it in a nutshell and anyone who supports this is, frankly, unAmerican and not worthy of the principles of this country. Maybe China would be more to your liking.

[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?

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?

You’re right. The plane didn’t crash. No one died. More proof regulation isn’t needed and anti democratic. I can’t wait to get up in the air in one of those things.

[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.

I hope you are actually reading and thinking about the responses you are getting here. It would help you to understand what agencies really do nad how important it is to your life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Anonymous]

Agencies need to do less

Congress needs to do more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agencies need to do less

Congress needs to do more.

Yep. Law makers need direct accountability and punishment / fear of over reach

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, it’s totally up 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?

Facile logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agencies need to do less

Congress needs to do more.

Congress has to make that choice. The Supreme Court doesn't get to tell Congress "you need to do more."

Agencies are delegated powers by Congress through laws. The agency wouldn't be doing anything if Congress had not already delegated the authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agencies need to do less

Congress needs to do more.

Congress has to make that choice. The Supreme Court doesn't get to tell Congress "you need to do more."

Agencies are delegated powers by Congress through laws. The agency wouldn't be doing anything if Congress had not already delegated the authority.

Congress tries to do unconstitutional things all the time and the courts can undo them. A lazy Congress can’t protect itself from over reach accountability. Of course they want no accountability but they can’t have that

[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.

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.

The powers exercised in the bolded words in your first paragraph are properly functions of the legislative and judicial branches. Then, we get to the reality that the vast majority of the subject matter experts are not appointed but rather career civil servants who are not accountable to the voters.

I don’t want SCOTUS to throw out existing regs. I want the executive branch out of the rule making business but that’s not going to happen. So I’ll settle for zero deference being shown to the executive branch when it engages in rule making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Give me a break. Law of unintended consequences is real. Lots of environmentalists and blue states today lamenting the environmental impact/review process that was used by environmental groups to obstruct and delay development in the 80s and 90s in places like California. Now those processes are being deployed by NIMBYs against green and critical infrastructure and it’s turning into a problem. This is not unique to FedSoc or the right.

[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?

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.

The powers exercised in the bolded words in your first paragraph are properly functions of the legislative and judicial branches. Then, we get to the reality that the vast majority of the subject matter experts are not appointed but rather career civil servants who are not accountable to the voters.

I don’t want SCOTUS to throw out existing regs. I want the executive branch out of the rule making business but that’s not going to happen. So I’ll settle for zero deference being shown to the executive branch when it engages in rule making.

Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the Executive office to "faithfully execute" the laws passed by Congress. Not sure why you think the Executive branch shouldn't be involved in the rulemaking process; it is literally the Constitutional duty of the Executive to implement those laws.

The executive branch does not receive "deference" willy-nilly by the courts. There is a multi-prong test for the Executive branch to get deference - (1) the law passed by Congress must be "ambiguous" (eg, an undefined term in the law) and (2) the agency's interpretation must be "reasonable" or "permissible." If the agency takes some crazy interpretation of the law, it doesn't get deference. The court has struck down agencies numerous times on these factors.

Frankly, it sounds like you want chaos. And we all know that chaos is a ladder for people like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Give me a break. Law of unintended consequences is real. Lots of environmentalists and blue states today lamenting the environmental impact/review process that was used by environmental groups to obstruct and delay development in the 80s and 90s in places like California. Now those processes are being deployed by NIMBYs against green and critical infrastructure and it’s turning into a problem. This is not unique to FedSoc or the right.

What did I say that wasn't true? Who was arguing for the Chevron deference in 1983 before the SC?

Hint - it was this guy: https://fedsoc.org/paul-m-bator-award-recipients

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agencies need to do less

Congress needs to do more.

Why? Expound on this simplistic logic.