Bye-bye Chevron

[Anonymous]

This whole argument is a between a bunch of platitude spouting simpletons who make cryptic arguments like “Congress needs to do more”.

Whereas the intelligent arguments, basically those advocating in favor of Chevron, are coming from the folks who actually understand the vital role that experts play in helping establishing safe levels of things like NoX emissions on a community.

Do you fks really want less water protections? Why do you want bad air? It seems like you have no clue that pollution is unhealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is a between a bunch of platitude spouting simpletons who make cryptic arguments like “Congress needs to do more”.

Whereas the intelligent arguments, basically those advocating in favor of Chevron, are coming from the folks who actually understand the vital role that experts play in helping establishing safe levels of things like NoX emissions on a community.

Do you fks really want less water protections? Why do you want bad air? It seems like you have no clue that pollution is unhealthy.

Something something FREEDOM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agencies need to do less

Congress needs to do more.

Congress writes laws that provide the framework and parameters. But they leave the specifics of implementation up to agencies, through rulemaking. Rulemakings have to be within the scope of the statutes enacted by Congress. It would be ineffective for Congress to micromanage that, not to mention that Congress lacks the subject matter expertise to do so.

[Anonymous]

TBH, this feels like a prelude to the SC trying to say that the existence of many federal agencies are illegal and thus must be disbanded immediately.

No matter that Congress previously created such agencies through law and has appropriated funding to such agencies since their creation.

[Anonymous]

This is going to be so, soooooooooo scary especially wrt artificial intelligence. They’re basically going to have no govt oversight on AI with no technical knowledge made decisions on allowing AI into the wild. This is how humanity ceases to exist and we end up with a world like The Terminator. The nightmare this could lead to is absolutely terrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be so, soooooooooo scary especially wrt artificial intelligence. They’re basically going to have no govt oversight on AI with no technical knowledge made decisions on allowing AI into the wild. This is how humanity ceases to exist and we end up with a world like The Terminator. The nightmare this could lead to is absolutely terrifying.

Between the environment and AI, the best days are behind us. It only gets worse from here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be so, soooooooooo scary especially wrt artificial intelligence. They’re basically going to have no govt oversight on AI with no technical knowledge made decisions on allowing AI into the wild. This is how humanity ceases to exist and we end up with a world like The Terminator. The nightmare this could lead to is absolutely terrifying.

Between the environment and AI, the best days are behind us. It only gets worse from here.

Yes, but edgelord, neckbeard wannabe preppers types get to crow simplistically online about “the constitution” and “congress doing their job!” without having to actually consider these broader ramifications. It’s about how they feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be so, soooooooooo scary especially wrt artificial intelligence. They’re basically going to have no govt oversight on AI with no technical knowledge made decisions on allowing AI into the wild. This is how humanity ceases to exist and we end up with a world like The Terminator. The nightmare this could lead to is absolutely terrifying.

Between the environment and AI, the best days are behind us. It only gets worse from here.

Yes, but edgelord, neckbeard wannabe preppers types get to crow simplistically online about “the constitution” and “congress doing their job!” without having to actually consider these broader ramifications. It’s about how they feel.

Same kinds of "own the libs" guys who spend hundreds of dollars illegally modifying their diesel pickup trucks so that it will spew sooty black smoke at the flick of a switch whenever they get triggered by the sight of a Prius or a cyclist... who then whine about how much it now costs to fill their tank, not realizing their "own the libs" mod reduced their MPG. Sure, burn it all down to "own the libs" without any thought to the fact that what they are burning down is also everything they themselves depend on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be so, soooooooooo scary especially wrt artificial intelligence. They’re basically going to have no govt oversight on AI with no technical knowledge made decisions on allowing AI into the wild. This is how humanity ceases to exist and we end up with a world like The Terminator. The nightmare this could lead to is absolutely terrifying.

Between the environment and AI, the best days are behind us. It only gets worse from here.

Yes, but edgelord, neckbeard wannabe preppers types get to crow simplistically online about “the constitution” and “congress doing their job!” without having to actually consider these broader ramifications. It’s about how they feel.

Same kinds of "own the libs" guys who spend hundreds of dollars illegally modifying their diesel pickup trucks so that it will spew sooty black smoke at the flick of a switch whenever they get triggered by the sight of a Prius or a cyclist... who then whine about how much it now costs to fill their tank, not realizing their "own the libs" mod reduced their MPG. Sure, burn it all down to "own the libs" without any thought to the fact that what they are burning down is also everything they themselves depend on.

I think these are different groups
But the Venn diagram def meets up.

[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 anti-regulation people are ignorant. Regulatory agencies are under the constant oversight of Senate and House Committees whose leaders collect millions of dollars in contributions from the regulated industries. The idea that regulators are not accountable is ridiculous. Their regulations are continually questioned by Congress and the Courts, but also every time Congress amends the law or a court reinterprets it, the agency has to modify the regulations, guidance, forms, templates, training, etc. In fact, most modifications to regulations are to incorporate legislative changes or judicial rulings.

[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?

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.

I don’t think you know what “execute” means in this context and you certainly don’t know what it meant when Article II was drafted. In a system of separation of powers with co-equal branches of government, executing the laws means the laws drafted by Congress. Federalist 70, 73 and 78 are a great place to start. Not even Alexander Hamilton believed that rule making power should reside within the executive branch.

As for when Chevron applies, it doesn’t matter. As the executive branch holds the proverbial sword, it is underserving of any deference for the other branches.

Federalist 78:

“The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are regulated.”

I’d love for non-delegation to become reality. But that’s never happening. At the very least, the executive branch should never be shown deference in domestic matters.

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

[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 anti-regulation people are ignorant. Regulatory agencies are under the constant oversight of Senate and House Committees whose leaders collect millions of dollars in contributions from the regulated industries. The idea that regulators are not accountable is ridiculous. Their regulations are continually questioned by Congress and the Courts, but also every time Congress amends the law or a court reinterprets it, the agency has to modify the regulations, guidance, forms, templates, training, etc. In fact, most modifications to regulations are to incorporate legislative changes or judicial rulings.

And, this regulation is being challenged in court. Quit your whining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole argument is a between a bunch of platitude spouting simpletons who make cryptic arguments like “Congress needs to do more”.

Whereas the intelligent arguments, basically those advocating in favor of Chevron, are coming from the folks who actually understand the vital role that experts play in helping establishing safe levels of things like NoX emissions on a community.

Do you fks really want less water protections? Why do you want bad air? It seems like you have no clue that pollution is unhealthy.

Your use of the words simpleton and intelligent are very telling. Are judicial review and separate, co-equal branches of government really that scary to you?

Why do you hate democracy so much? Do you only believe in democracy when you get your way? Why are you afraid of subject matter experts having their decisions scrutinized?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agencies need to do less

Congress needs to do more.

Congress writes laws that provide the framework and parameters. But they leave the specifics of implementation up to agencies, through rulemaking. Rulemakings have to be within the scope of the statutes enacted by Congress. It would be ineffective for Congress to micromanage that, not to mention that Congress lacks the subject matter expertise to do so.

If only it worked that way in reality.

The present cases involve a law where Congress isn't and hasn’t been funding enforcement for decades and so NMFS implemented its own rule for funding it. I understand the nobility of the cause here. But, at the very least, the courts should NOT be deferring to the agency on how to fund enforcement. Or are you people really arguing that we need to defer to subject matter experts on funding enforcement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agencies need to do less

Congress needs to do more.

Congress writes laws that provide the framework and parameters. But they leave the specifics of implementation up to agencies, through rulemaking. Rulemakings have to be within the scope of the statutes enacted by Congress. It would be ineffective for Congress to micromanage that, not to mention that Congress lacks the subject matter expertise to do so.

If only it worked that way in reality.

The present cases involve a law where Congress isn't and hasn’t been funding enforcement for decades and so NMFS implemented its own rule for funding it. I understand the nobility of the cause here. But, at the very least, the courts should NOT be deferring to the agency on how to fund enforcement. Or are you people really arguing that we need to defer to subject matter experts on funding enforcement?

Suppose a local police force didn't have adequate funding for paying their police officers. So, they decided that in order to adequately fund their police force, they would simply charge each resident of their district a fee every time a police officer was called.
That is similar to what is happening here.