Anonymous wrote:Does this mean every IRS policy will be subject to the courts?

Anonymous wrote:LOL, SCOTUS just legalized pot

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

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?

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

But even the 535 of them don't have the PHD level expertise.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tell me, how does this not have unintended consequences.

For example, let's say there is a contentious drug approval for company X. Company Y is a competitor. Why wouldn't Y just go find a court where they can sue to remove the approval for X's drug because they can argue that X didn't meet the requirements and some judge will overturn the approval and block X from selling? It will turn into a massive S show for innovation, and companies could use the courts to block their competitors from selling things on the market by trying to manipulate the law through some highly unqualified judge who knows nothing about technical issues.

Yup.

It's also going to cause chaos in patent laws, securities laws, consumer safety, healthcare, etc. It will likely destroy American commerce for good because companies and individuals will need to contend with 50 states of conflicting regulation. If anything, the downfall of Chevron will only make California and New York more powerful.

And Texas will become an open-air laboratory for companies to test out their products in real time on a clueless population with no oversight. If a bunch of people die in Texas from some quack pill approved by a rogue judge, oh well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

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?

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

But even the 535 of them don't have the PHD level expertise.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A few thoughts:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.

In short, unelected judges who went to law school and have zero experience with myriad technical issues will be the apex policy deciders in areas where Congressional laws are ambiguous. This is profoundly dangerous. In addition, American citizens have lost a key ability to influence policy - (1) through election of the President and (2) the ability to comment on regulations issued by the Executive. A judge now has the ability to overrule all that on a whim, unless he is overruled by a court. And it costs money to appeal a court decision.

Very bad day for the United States and its citizens. Power has been grabbed by a small clique of elite law school graduates from the American voter.

Not true in many levels:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.
--> Depends on the judge. Many local general judges are elected. Circuit and higher are appointed by the executive and consented by the electorate body. Administrative judges can be elected, appointed, or hired depending on the agency/locality.

[Local judges" who are elected are deciding on state-level issues. Chevron has nothing to do with that. Clearly we are talking about the federal judiciary usurping power for itself.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.
--& Most are kept in place. Usually only the Secretaries are replaced.

What are you talking about? No, it's not true that "most are kept in place." Secretaries of the agency appointed by the President must approve a change in regulation before it can be proposed or implemented. Agency staff cannot unilaterally put something in the Federal Register without the approval of the head of their afency. Further, the GOP is going to use "Acting" heads of agencies and not even bother with Senate confirmation in 2025.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.
--> The public comments are frequently ignored. Just look at the ATF regulations for examples.

The comments are not "ignored." They must be summarized and addressed by the agency. You may not like how the agency responded to your comment, but the agency considered it. The agency moves at the direction of the President and his appointed head of the agency.

Points addressed above. The PP leaves out a lot of nuance and plays off the public's ignorance as to how the federal government actually works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

The bolded section is exactly why the left hates this decision.

A few thoughts:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.

In short, unelected judges who went to law school and have zero experience with myriad technical issues will be the apex policy deciders in areas where Congressional laws are ambiguous. This is profoundly dangerous. In addition, American citizens have lost a key ability to influence policy - (1) through election of the President and (2) the ability to comment on regulations issued by the Executive. A judge now has the ability to overrule all that on a whim, unless he is overruled by a court. And it costs money to appeal a court decision.

Very bad day for the United States and its citizens. Power has been grabbed by a small clique of elite law school graduates from the American voter.

Wow every point you just made about why you think this is bad solidifies why I am voting for Trump.

Do you not understand we are tired of bureaucrats run amok and mob rule?

Bravo.

So you support Unelected Royalist judges?

I'm sure you would've been a Red Coat.

Better than your unelected puppet master bureaucrats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A few thoughts:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.

In short, unelected judges who went to law school and have zero experience with myriad technical issues will be the apex policy deciders in areas where Congressional laws are ambiguous. This is profoundly dangerous. In addition, American citizens have lost a key ability to influence policy - (1) through election of the President and (2) the ability to comment on regulations issued by the Executive. A judge now has the ability to overrule all that on a whim, unless he is overruled by a court. And it costs money to appeal a court decision.

Very bad day for the United States and its citizens. Power has been grabbed by a small clique of elite law school graduates from the American voter.

Not true in many levels:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.
--> Depends on the judge. Many local general judges are elected. Circuit and higher are appointed by the executive and consented by the electorate body. Administrative judges can be elected, appointed, or hired depending on the agency/locality.

[Local judges" who are elected are deciding on state-level issues. Chevron has nothing to do with that. Clearly we are talking about the federal judiciary usurping power for itself.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.
--& Most are kept in place. Usually only the Secretaries are replaced.

What are you talking about? No, it's not true that "most are kept in place." Secretaries of the agency appointed by the President must approve a change in regulation before it can be proposed or implemented. Agency staff cannot unilaterally put something in the Federal Register without the approval of the head of their afency. Further, the GOP is going to use "Acting" heads of agencies and not even bother with Senate confirmation in 2025.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.
--> The public comments are frequently ignored. Just look at the ATF regulations for examples.

The comments are not "ignored." They must be summarized and addressed by the agency. You may not like how the agency responded to your comment, but the agency considered it. The agency moves at the direction of the President and his appointed head of the agency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A few thoughts:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.

In short, unelected judges who went to law school and have zero experience with myriad technical issues will be the apex policy deciders in areas where Congressional laws are ambiguous. This is profoundly dangerous. In addition, American citizens have lost a key ability to influence policy - (1) through election of the President and (2) the ability to comment on regulations issued by the Executive. A judge now has the ability to overrule all that on a whim, unless he is overruled by a court. And it costs money to appeal a court decision.

Very bad day for the United States and its citizens. Power has been grabbed by a small clique of elite law school graduates from the American voter.

Not true in many levels:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.
--> Depends on the judge. Many local general judges are elected. Circuit and higher are appointed by the executive and consented by the electorate body. Administrative judges can be elected, appointed, or hired depending on the agency/locality.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.
--> Most are kept in place. Usually only the Secretaries are replaced.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.
--> The public comments are frequently ignored. Just look at the ATF regulations for examples.

Anonymous wrote:

A few thoughts:
1. Judges are unelected elites. And they hold their position for life. Truly, they are more akin to American Royalists.

2. Federal agencies are staffed by unelected individuals - that's true. But they are overseen by agency leaders that are appointed by the President. These leaders overturn when the voters elect a new President. The federal agencies are more responsive to electoral change than the Royal Unelected Judges.

3. Federal agencies are required to issue for notice and comment any regulations they issue. This is required by the Administrative Procedures Act. Agencies must publicly address comment suggestions from the public. Further, agencies change regulations all the time in response to public comment. This is direct democracy in action - the public comments and the executive branch agencies must respond. Federal judges do not have to consider any public comments at all. No need to respond or use for deliberation.

In short, unelected judges who went to law school and have zero experience with myriad technical issues will be the apex policy deciders in areas where Congressional laws are ambiguous. This is profoundly dangerous. In addition, American citizens have lost a key ability to influence policy - (1) through election of the President and (2) the ability to comment on regulations issued by the Executive. A judge now has the ability to overrule all that on a whim, unless he is overruled by a court. And it costs money to appeal a court decision.

Very bad day for the United States and its citizens. Power has been grabbed by a small clique of elite law school graduates from the American voter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

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?

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

But even the 535 of them don't have the PHD level expertise.

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 count.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

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?

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

But even the 535 of them don't have the PHD level expertise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

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?

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