Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron
L: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/
C: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39050575
posted on 2024.01.18 at 20:36:44 (c=0, p=4)
@hkrn the only problem I have with #chevrondeference is that a president can't change it. It's probably easier to bomb brown people in sandy countries than to change regulations.
So, either it's a law under the Legislature, or...if it's an interpretation by the executive then it needs to be malleable.
@nicholas_saunders the point is that presidents don't and shouldn't have the authority to make such administrative interpretations in the first place, bypassing the democratic system.
Heck, your two issues are related: a president might appeal to Chevron deference to support his claim of authority to bomb foreigners.
After all, there are regulations regarding the use of military force, and it's a problem that presidents would be able to just interpret restrictions away.
@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.
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.
@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.
@nicholas_saunders they weren't. That's the whole point.
@volkris @hkrn well, I'll look into it more closely, certainly. But my understanding is the opposite.
As it relates to the constitution, I would want the executive to be able to change its mind. I certainly wouldn't want the judicial changing its mind as easily. There are even some weird #scotus "decisions" that are difficult. Like that corporations are people.
You would want the executive to never be able to change its mind? Because I do.
@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.
@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.
@volkris @hkrn huh.
I'm more than okay with mutable regulations.
My understanding was that regulations were immutable.
Thanks for clarifying, or at least reiterating.