volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@JessTheUnstill I mainly blame the state of journalism in the country, where so many people noticed that they were being offered reporting that just didn't make sense, that came across as gaslighting, that they lost faith in the institution.

At that point, without trustworthy sources of information it's completely unsurprising that people weren't willing to believe that the new injections were safe.

@rickf it strikes me that that sort of reply is exactly why the nah rate was 40%.

So much false information circulated that people didn't have faith in it.
@JessTheUnstill @kittywifclaws

@nicholas_saunders yeah, and that's a huge part of the criticism of Chevron deference, that it gives the judiciary (along with the executive) too much involvement in questions that should be the realm of the Congress.

Under Chevron the executive and judicial branches get together to decide things that the legislative branch needs to be deciding. Rolling back Chevron is about getting both out of the way.

@hkrn

@chiraag I love that you emphasized the conspiracy in your reply.

@Weedkiller

@chiraag that's not what's happening.

@Weedkiller

@nicholas_saunders exactly, and philosophically that is the enormous reason that the court should roll back Chevron.

Well I say philosophically, but it's also extremely practically. This is the delegation issue. The people that we elect should not be allowed to escape their responsibility for sorting this stuff out.

@hkrn

@chiraag No you're getting that backwards.

You're saying the only way this is a conspiracy theory is if you ignore the conspiracy, but no, that's exactly why this is a conspiracy theory.

And it's it's bad for workers to promote it.

That's the whole problem.

@Weedkiller

@Snowshadow@mastodon.social what hook?

@Snowshadow@mastodon.social Yeah but those satellites make life better for a ton of people.

So you seem to be celebrating a detriment to the whole for the sake of a few.

@nicholas_saunders they weren't. That's the whole point.

@hkrn

@chiraag you are literally describing a conspiracy theory.

You might think it's entirely true, but that doesn't not make it a conspiracy theory. You're talking about a conspiracy. And your theory is pretty out there.

But then all conspiracy theorists promoting their narratives at least say they think their theories are true.

The key is to realize what you're promoting and how you sound to others.

@Weedkiller

@nicholas_saunders I think I set it before, but if I haven't, no the entire point of this discussion is that regulations are absolutely mutable especially under Chevron deference.

That's one of the key points here, that as different presidents have taken charge they have changed the regulations, and that is extremely problematic for the legal system.

That the regulations are emphatically mutable is the entire point here.

@hkrn

@chiraag Yes but you are factually wrong! That is what I'm trying to express to you here.

They're offering a job. Their incentive is to find somebody to fill the job because they benefit from somebody filling the job.

You don't have to go all conspiracy theory here. You just sound like a kook when you do that.

Here's a job that needs to be done, and here is the compensation that they are offering for anybody who would like to benefit themselves for doing that job, for accepting that compensation in return.

It's no more than that, so it just ends up nutty to start talking about bigger conspiracy theories around it.

@Weedkiller

@nicholas_saunders

But it comes down to a matter of fact. You can see that regulations are not immutable if you go check out the history of the CFR or regulations.gov or check out the various laws regarding the updating of federal regulations.

There is an enormous amount of legal framework providing for the mutability of federal regulations. That's the whole point, the whole reason this is an issue in the first place.

@hkrn

@chiraag No I'm not telling you there are neutral actors here.

I don't know where you got that.

I'm telling you that there are actors offering positive options, for their own self-interest of course, but the options they are offering are still positive.

Far from neutral, they are offering ways for a person to better their lives.

That is factually what's going on.

@Weedkiller

@nicholas_saunders under Chevron, as we've seen, precious little.

That's one major real world problem that we've seen in application, each president feeling free to change effective law unilaterally, without needing any consultation with the elected Congress.

@hkrn

@itnewsbot the Ars article is missing that without that deference the Network Neutrality policy might not have been allowed in the first place, so Pai wouldn't have had anything to reverse.

It really was a live by the sword, die by the sword situation.

The bad idea that allowed the policy change is the one that allowed the policy in the first place, and it all highlights why it Chevron needs to be left behind.

@bespacific no, that's not quite right.

Chevron does not say courts have that power. They only have the power to call out the president when executive interpretations clearly exceed limits on presidential power.

The courts still don't get to come up with novel interpretations the way Chevron provides to the president.

@eriner I think you lost the thread at "post-Constitutional America"

Once you get to that point jury trials probably don't matter anyway.