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]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.[/quote]

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?  [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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. [b]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.[/b] [/quote]

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.[/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