Reply to Bye-bye Chevron

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Bye-bye Chevron "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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[/quote]

Well, I'm going to guess you never studied the Constitution in law school.
This ruling does not make Judges the new policymakers. It just restricts unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats from making laws (regulations that have the force of law) according to their own interpretation of enacted laws. The Constitution (and writings of the Founding Fathers) is very specific in the need to have law and policy makers accountable to the electors. I fail to understand how anyone would support a large bureaucratic state that can create regulations with the force of law and punish the people with no accountability or recourse from those being punished. These regulations, unlike enacted law, and bureaucrats are not accountable to the people; the vast majority cannot be changed through an election (yes, that is the “Deep State”).  This is paired with Jarkesy, where a bureaucratic agency can establish regulations and try and convict a person with its own “judge” and no representation from the person being convicted. That process is blatantly unconstitutional, it strips the Congress of its enumerated powers and the People of their Due Rights protections in favor of bureaucratic “efficiency”. Yes, it handcuffs the government from regulating people and corporations by forcing them to do things the Constitutional way and limits their ability to pad their coffers with regulation violations, but that is fully within the scope of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers for a limited government.  This was the right decision.[/quote]

So you think the likes of Jim Jordan or Lauren Boebert or even Jamie Raskin have the expertise to get into the minutia or rulemaking at this granular level?[/quote]

Individually, no one person does. That is why there are 535 of them with knowledgeable staffs.[/quote]

But even the 535 of them don't have the PHD level expertise. [/quote]

The judicial branch will need to hire a ton of policy experts to advise judges. One of the results of the fall of Chevron will be a big expansion of the judiciary branch's head court. [/quote]

Of late, SCOTUS hasn't bothered to listen to any experts at all.  It does not bode well.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics