Yet another way that the Republican robed majority are engaging in power grabs to take from the elected branches and give to themselves.
That herring fisherman will likely be out of business in a few short years with uncontrolled overfishing, and will many more follow chasing the last of our marine resources.
This is not new. For example, almost all labor contracts I have been involve have a grievance process. When 2 sides disagree it goes to arbitration and then ultimately decided by a third party… and then going forward that section is no longer ambiguous and considered settled. With chevron there is no 3rd party and it’s decided by unelected lifer bureaucrats that have a vested or ideologic interest. When you have ambiguities in the law then grieve it and settle it civilly like everyone else. Typical fascists decentralizing power and control
How much carbon is safe to emit isn't a contract dispute, and its not within a court's expertise to determine either. This isnt about vague language being resolved, because if congress tasks a federal agency with say "regulating carbon to safe levels" that is a) potentially subject to change over time, and b) not some fine point of law. Essentially this basically empowers a court to determine how much carbon is safe if some industry doesnt like how a regulation is being enforced by a federal agency. Basically its just a veto over any federal regulation which only needs a court friendly to the plaintiff.
what it does it place a much greater burden on the federal Agency to provide data and have that data refuted out in the open before they are able to able to just carte blache regulate an entire industry from some jackwagon’s desk with impunity. Edit. Ugh. Edited first post. Voice to text put in knew instead of new.
If the whole thing is jettisoned entirely (as expected) how does an Agency even do that when it would seemingly all be left to the courts? You think the capacity of our federal judicial system is sufficient, or trial court judges qualified, to handle what would be put in front of it if agency interpretation is disemboweled?
Why should they have to prove something like that to a bunch of lawyers who dont know anything about carbon? What position are they in to review data like that? Its one thing to argue over what a law means as written, its entirely another just for a court to say what amount of carbon is safe without any sort of knowledge on the subject. Essentially they will just be deffering on the matter too, to whatever interest they are friendlier too. So it wont really be the courts knowledge, it will be Exxon's lawyers saying how much carbon is safe when they side with them, not some EPA scientist.
Well they invented Chevron because the federal judiciary used to be full of older liberal appointees, and they decided the Reagan/Bush-era agencies should be the last word on rules and such. They have showed flexibility on this, in that the master class should always win.
This is going to be a disaster. I’ve neither the time nor energy to point out why, but some good reasons have been given upstream. The essence of this is that the powers that be don’t want any regulation and have convinced many that this is a good thing, foremost among them being Rick.
This is incorrent. ACOE and FDEP still claim They get settled in court, trust me on this one. Most end up being settled.
The difference he is noting is that now the agencies ruling can be challenged with an arbiter getting both sides of the story, asking for more data, and then rendering judgement. Seems Fair to me. What we have now is the equivalent of John Morgan winning a case for full claim based on one of his “experts” opinions. We all know that his “experts” all are bought and paid for and we now have seen enough abuse and overegulation by these agencies that they are most likely tipping the scale of objective experts in their favor and not disclosing contradictory opinion, and can not be reasonably questioned or challenged. Note to government agencies: be fair and don’t abuse your authority or politicize what were passed as good legislation and said legislation will not be challenged by lawsuits
That's an optimistic way to look at it. My take is that it will end like Texas where judges have supplanted doctors in treating patients or deciding when to treat based on vague abortion laws. In a larger picture, Koch industries can dump coal ash in rivers again if a judge, without any understanding or conern for of the environmental damages, overrides the EPA.
Claim what? If you are talking about something like the Federal Clean Water Act where swamps and wetlands are deemed crucial to the aquifer and subject to regulation -- but not automatic state ownership -- then I agree. But Rick is talking about "state waters" which I took to mean state "ownership" ... the rules for that are well settled, the water has to be below the mean high water line for tidal bodies or ordinary high water for non-tidal, and has to be navigable, for the state to claim it as sovereign water. If the water on or near your property meets those criteria, then you never owned it in the first place (exception being a TIIFT deed).
The state claim wetlands the same as the feds, not ownership, regulatory authority over wetlands not directly connected. Fun fact, mhwl can be out in the water or way up on shore, especially where erosion and restoration cycles occur.
Alright, but like I said, when he said "state waters" my mind went to "sovereign ownership" ... people still own a regulated wetland and can even fill it if they mitigate. And about MHWL, it's nearly impossible to prove the location of a former mean high water line unless it was part of a something like a beach restoration project where the line was mapped before the fill was brought it. There are surprisingly few water boundary surveys on file with the state even though private surveyors are supposed to file those surveys by state law. If it's in question, I've seen multiple times where the FDEP approved just scaling the apparent shore line off of the oldest aerial photos they could find and calling it good enough, usually 1930-1940 era ... there is no way that is accurate.
This isn't remotely correct. Agencies have to show their work. Their rules and regulations are subject to arbitrary and capricious challenges, even with Chevron deference. If they don't show the basis for what they're doing, their rules get struck down by the courts. All this does is further empower bureaucrats with no expertise in the subject matter (lawyers) to overrule bureaucrats who do have an expertise because the lawyers disagree with the policy. I get that y'all think us lawyers are brilliant, but we do have our shortcomings and don't know it all.
