Chevron Deference

B

Brewer

Heritage
Pretty major ruling today, as SCOTUS overruled the Chevron Deference doctrine.

I'm unclear on to what extent this is a good thing. It seems pretty double-edged. On one hand, it's a major wind-back for the administrative state. It's a principled move because it guts the power of federal agencies to interpret laws and puts that power back with Congress, which is where it was intended to be by the framers of the Constitution.

On the other hand, it limits the ability of a conservative president to use federal agencies effectively, like if Trump wanted to mobilize ICE to massively deport illegal immigrants.

Also, Congress is slow, filled with corrupt swamp critters, and is ineffective at passing laws that benefit the American people.

I wonder if this ruling is coming ahead of a potential Trump presidency - they're trying to limit the power of the executive branch.
 
Brewer said:
Pretty major ruling today, as SCOTUS overruled the Chevron Deference doctrine.

I'm unclear on to what extent this is a good thing. It seems pretty double-edged. On one hand, it's a major wind-back for the administrative state. It's a principled move because it guts the power of federal agencies to interpret laws and puts that power back with Congress, which is where it was intended to be by the framers of the Constitution.

On the other hand, it limits the ability of a conservative president to use federal agencies effectively, like if Trump wanted to mobilize ICE to massively deport illegal immigrants.

Also, Congress is slow, filled with corrupt swamp critters, and is ineffective at passing laws that benefit the American people.

I wonder if this ruling is coming ahead of a potential Trump presidency - they're trying to limit the power of the executive branch.
Click to expand...
It's a good thing.

It's how the EPA makes rules that regulate vehicles arbitrarily with out laws.
 
Get2choppaaa said:
It's a good thing.

It's how the EPA makes rules that regulate vehicles arbitrarily with out laws.
Click to expand...
Yes. People have no idea how much they've gimped regular passenger cars and trucks in the US these past two decades. I think they did it on purpose to make EVs more appealing to the public, but that has failed too. Now they have to start walking the regulations back so automakers can make the cars and trucks that people actually want to buy.

What they've done to vehicles is absolutely retarded. People used to get 80mpg with the 1st gen Honda Insight, due to it's ability to go into "lean burn", which the unelected Govt agencies deemed bad for the environment, and now 25 years later the best you'll get out of a hybrid car is 55mpg.

You've got new full size pickups trucks coming with tiny, high strung turbocharged engines that are guaranteed to blow up as soon as your warranty is up. Car sales have plummeted, and people are now keeping their cars longer than ever before because no one wants to pay post inflation prices for inferior European-ized products.
 
mountainaire said:
Yes. People have no idea how much they've gimped regular passenger cars and trucks in the US these past two decades. I think they did it on purpose to make EVs more appealing to the public, but that has failed too. Now they have to start walking the regulations back so automakers can make the cars and trucks that people actually want to buy.

What they've done to vehicles is absolutely retarded. People used to get 80mpg with the 1st gen Honda Insight, due to it's ability to go into "lean burn", which the unelected Govt agencies deemed bad for the environment, and now 25 years later the best you'll get out of a hybrid car is 55mpg.

You've got new full size pickups trucks coming with tiny, high strung turbocharged engines that are guaranteed to blow up as soon as your warranty is up. Car sales have plummeted, and people are now keeping their cars longer than ever before because no one wants to pay post inflation prices for inferior European-ized products.
Click to expand...

Well put, modern cars are a complete disaster and all those turbocharged auto start/stop engines are dropping like flies not to mention all the silly gizmos in them. I remember the first time someone told me they had to put exhaust fluid in their truck I laughed, I though they were toying with me like the old blinker fluid joke.
 
Chevron deference, or Chevron doctrine, is an administrative law principle that compelled federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer.

The principle derives its name from the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. which concerned disagreement over a change in the Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of a permitting provision of the Clean Air Act of 1977. The case established a two-step review approach used by courts to analyze an agency's legal interpretations. Under the review process, courts considered (1) Congress' clear intent in passing a law and (2) (if the court found ambiguities in the law) whether an agency's rule was reasonably construed and not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.[1]

Chevron served as the legal structure through which courts could review, approve, and reject regulations in the context of statutory intent. It also maintained a relatively strict rule of deference to federal agencies' interpretations of federal laws, having given regulators broad authority to make rules related to the environment, health care, immigration, and other subjects of public policy. Opponents of Chevron deference often argued that it infringed on the separation of powers, however, supporters posited that the doctrine allowed administrative agencies to operate efficiently.
Click to expand...

It was a 1984 SCOTUS precedent. It gave federal agencies the power to set their own regulations within the boundaries provided by Congress. As long as the policies they set were reasonable interpretations of the law, courts were supposed to defer to them (thus "deference").

Basically what Congress does is pass extremely general or ambiguous laws. For example, "in this year's budget, we're granting the EPA $20 million to make our air cleaner." Under Chevron deference, the EPA could enact this mandate by setting specific policies: all diesel trucks have to use DEF by 2019, all smokestack emissions have to be under X ppm by 2015, and so on. It gives federal agencies wide latitude to set their own policies.

An upside of Chevron deference is that policies are being set by people who are knowledgable in the field (scientists, doctors, and so on) rather than judges or politicians. They're also able to set policies more quickly, rather than waiting for Congress to pass a law. The downside is that these people are unelected, and their appointments and policies are under control of the current Presidential administration. If you have a fake and gay administration, many of the resulting federal policies will be fake and gay as well.
 
Get2choppaaa said:
It's a good thing.

It's how the EPA makes rules that regulate vehicles arbitrarily with out laws.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that simple. A lot of the regulations are positive. I don't have any desire to go back to the days of companies dumping industrial waste into rivers. I had a friend growing up that lived in an area that used to have some kind of chemical factory. He and all his brothers had minor abnormalities with their joints, and half the kids on the street had extremely rare genetic diseases.

I'm sure if I were a truck driver, I would feel that having to buy DEF is annoying and gay, but I also remember when getting stuck behind a semi truck meant breathing a cloud of noxious fumes. I've noticed that has gotten better over the last 10 years or so.

Yes, it's bad in a sense to have unelected civilians making policies, but I'm not sure that I trust Congress or the courts more. Half the courts are filled with activist judges, and Congress is largely at the whim of lobbyist money. I see this decision as largely favoring big business.
 
Brewer said:
I don't think it's that simple. A lot of the regulations are positive. I don't have any desire to go back to the days of companies dumping industrial waste into rivers. I had a friend growing up that lived in an area that used to have some kind of chemical factory. He and all his brothers had minor abnormalities with their joints, and half the kids on the street had extremely rare genetic diseases.

I'm sure if I were a truck driver, I would feel that having to buy DEF is annoying and gay, but I also remember when getting stuck behind a semi truck meant breathing a cloud of noxious fumes. I've noticed that has gotten better over the last 10 years or so.

Yes, it's bad in a sense to have unelected civilians making policies, but I'm not sure that I trust Congress or the courts more. Half the courts are filled with activist judges, and Congress is largely at the whim of lobbyist money. I see this decision as largely favoring big business.
Click to expand...
Congress and the courts Is the way our system works.

The Founding fathers set it up that way.

Elected officials are going to be more accountable than appointed bureaucrats
 
FrancisK said:
I can see both sides but this is an excellent point, for whatever it's worth things shouldn't be dictated by alphabet agencies with no accountability to voters.
Click to expand...
So this legal principle is also how agencies like the DEA and BATFE write drug laws and gun laws as they please...members of the Executive branch writing law...contrary to the US Constitution.
Not saying that dangerous or addictive drugs should be legal, but the DEA is an unlawful law unto itself...and this is how the BATF entrapped Randy Weaver in idaho. Of course, the courts threw out his federal firearms charges, but only after the death of his 14yo son at the hands of the US Marshals Service and the death of his wife at the hands of the FBI.
A lot of people hate the courts, but I would argue that the Judicial branch is the most important (but sadly, often the weakest) of the 3 branches in any democratic society.
 
Brewer said:
It was a 1984 SCOTUS precedent. It gave federal agencies the power to set their own regulations within the boundaries provided by Congress. As long as the policies they set were reasonable interpretations of the law, courts were supposed to defer to them (thus "deference").

Basically what Congress does is pass extremely general or ambiguous laws. For example, "in this year's budget, we're granting the EPA $20 million to make our air cleaner." Under Chevron deference, the EPA could enact this mandate by setting specific policies: all diesel trucks have to use DEF by 2019, all smokestack emissions have to be under X ppm by 2015, and so on. It gives federal agencies wide latitude to set their own policies.

An upside of Chevron deference is that policies are being set by people who are knowledgable in the field (scientists, doctors, and so on) rather than judges or politicians. They're also able to set policies more quickly, rather than waiting for Congress to pass a law. The downside is that these people are unelected, and their appointments and policies are under control of the current Presidential administration. If you have a fake and gay administration, many of the resulting federal policies will be fake and gay as well.
Click to expand...

A Chevron overturn could be a very big deal. I am presently in a tangle where Chevron Deference has had some bearing. There are other issues, but the EPA attorneys are not experts. EPA attorneys have dropped some very Chevron-esque language into the public record: "we have set set emission guidelines; there is a prima facia disproportionate effect on minorities, this is established by federal precedence" etc. We suspect (and have some evidence) that they are colluding with environmental activist groups to manipulate local politics and "ScIenCe!" They are jeopardizing multi-generational businesses in the middle of a region known for its clean environment - and poverty. Time will tell.
 
FrancisK said:
Well put, modern cars are a complete disaster and all those turbocharged auto start/stop engines are dropping like flies not to mention all the silly gizmos in them. I remember the first time someone told me they had to put exhaust fluid in their truck I laughed, I though they were toying with me like the old blinker fluid joke.
Click to expand...
The start/stop on conventional non-hybrid gasoline cars has become widespread because of harmonization with European-market vehicles where the auto-stop feature helps cars on EU fuel economy testing drive cycles, which differ from US/EPA testing regimen. On hybrids, this function not only makes sense but is part of the entire function of a hybrid system; on a regular gasoline car, its unnecessary.

I'm not sure how CAFE regulations figure into this judgement, but for the sake of the traditional American car, I hope there is some pushback on it. By the way, blame the proliferation of senseless, gas-guzzling SUVs and oversized bro trucks on CAFE; if it weren't for federally-mandated fuel economy standards, you would have a completely different automotive landscape in the United States today, one where most cars would still be proper sedans, coupes, and wagons with an array of powerful, efficient, and long-running 4/6/8 cylinder naturally-aspirated engines. Instead, you have women insisting on driving 3rd-row Tahoes to drive one child to school and their husbands buying half-ton crew-cab 4x4s to commute to an office park.
 


Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is a collection of conservative policy proposals from the Heritage Foundation to reshape the United States federal government in the event of a Republican Party victory in the 2024 presidential election.[2][3] It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of merit-based federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with loyal conservatives to further the objectives of the next Republican president.[4] It also adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory, a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States,[5][6] which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration.[3][7]Critics of Project 2025 have described this as an authoritarian, Christian nationalist plan to turn the United States into an autocracy.[8] Several experts in law and conservatives have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law, the separation of powers,[9][4]and civil liberties.[10]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top