Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron

No more selected agency heads writing federal laws is a good thing... especially when agencies become less than honest and reasonable these days.

 

The court guy at Vox seemed a bit more skeptical that the votes are there to completely abandon it, but he says it's still the most likely outcome.

John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett are unsure if they should crown themselves king and queen.

 

it would absolutely be a bad idea. They may not explicitly overrule but they will certainly weaken it so much that there may be no real difference

 

Laws are already written Rick, its all a matter of who gets to interpret them as they are applied, federal agencies delegated to that task filled with people who know something about their role, or elderly judges with law degrees

 

SCOTUS decisions will harm millions of citizens for decades to come. The herring fishing monitoring equipment should have been cost shared by the regulators by 2/3s. Many marine harvestors/profiters actually appreciate efforts to manage the resources to help provide a sustained supply. Better regulators tax the actual catch. That the buyers/consumers pay for the monitoring equipment.

 

Yeah, sure, but these "interpretations" often change the meaning of said laws. And all that can be added to these laws by these agencies are the problem.

 

I'll have to get back to you on just how many times these agencies have misused their power to "interpret" these laws, to the point of harming more than people people, places and things.

This will take a long time to fully unpack.

 

You’d rather now have the courts resolve legislative ambiguities, which would be the result here?

The irony (hypocrisy?) that those who for decades have decried “activist judges” are now so willing to give them carte blanche to resolve legislative ambiguities, rather than deferring to agencies with actual technical expertise in the subject matter is somewhat laughable. I get that agencies aren’t perfect but nothing will ever get done if all of this is thrown back to the courts. Are courts really capable of interpreting things like nuclear regulations?

 

I'd rather that they defer to the original intent of the law, and that's easy to find out since the majority already voted on this law... once upon a time voted on these laws. This means no more legislating for the EPA and the FDA and other abusive agencies.

IOW, no more re-interpreting laws by these agencies... good news.

 

The original intent of those laws was to delegate tasks to a federal agency not the supreme court lol

 

If so then why did we need the Chevron deference to begin with?

 

Mud puddles or small ponds caused by rain on your property are not the state's water, and is not and should never be considered a body of water controlled by the EPA.

 

Hyperbole. Water bodies are not considered under the state's jurisdiction unless the water level is maintained across seasons and the water is navigable ... look up the significance of "ordinary high water" if you are confused about that.

 

Public oversight cannot effectively exist without chevron. Nobody can write specifics for that many variables.

 

Pacific trawlers and long liners fought/fight monitoring with vigor. Primary reason for halibut and king population decimation.

 

Who does do the interpreting in your world? No law can consider every possible situation, let alone new technology or solutions.

 

How can congress write a law that accounts for every little variable or detail that arises from enforcing a law?

 

They have already done much of the limiting through the Major Questions Doctrine