Chevron deference ruling by SCOTUS is a huge deal for limiting the powers of the permanent bureaucracy

[ColonelAngus]

No more broad interpretation of laws by the 3 letter fascist Government agencies.

I LOVE THIS RULING.

IT IS A BIG DEAL. Another part of getting our Republic back from the brink of failure.

 

[1srelluc]

Yep, that's going to prevent the EPA for coming in after you get the proper state and county permits to dig a pond and spot declaring your pond site as a "wetlands".

 

[Crepitus]

No more broad interpretation of laws by the 3 letter fascist Government agencies.

I LOVE THIS RULING.

IT IS A BIG DEAL. Another part of getting our Republic back from the brink of failure.

I'm not sure you realize this, but whenever you try to compare things like the EPA to fascism you lose before you even get the chance to present your case.

 

[Darkwind]

A lot of Congresss people are really ticked off after this ruling.

Congress, when writing and formulating legislation, is going to have to actually do their job. Instead of just abdicating their authority to the Administrative state under the phony guise of "SME," they will have to actually bring these SME professionals into the legislative process and craft their laws properly.

It's going to eat into their sexual predation and grifting.

 

[ColonelAngus]

A lot of Congresss people are really ticked off after this ruling.

Congress, when writing and formulating legislation, is going to have to actually do their job. Instead of just abdicating their authority to the Administrative state under the phony guise of "SME," they will have to actually bring these SME professionals into the legislative process and craft their laws properly.

It's going to eat into their sexual predation and grifting.

If the left doesnt like it….YOU KNOW IT IS VERY SOUND POLICY.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Chevron deference ruling by SCOTUS is a huge deal for limiting the powers of the permanent bureaucracy​

Yep, that power has now been handed to the permanent judiciary.

So much better!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A lot of Congresss people are really ticked off after this ruling.

Congress, when writing and formulating legislation, is going to have to actually do their job. Instead of just abdicating their authority to the Administrative state under the phony guise of "SME," they will have to actually bring these SME professionals into the legislative process and craft their laws properly.

What are the chances of that actually happening in Congress today?

All this ruling will end up doing is moving the power from the experts at the agencies to the judges and justice of the Judicial branch.

 

[Darkwind]

What are the chances of that actually happening in Congress today?

All this ruling will end up doing is moving the power from the experts at the agencies to the judges and justice of the Judicial branch.

Well, if it happens or not -- and that means we as citizens will have to start making better choices -- is moot.

The Administrative State had extraordinary power that was never granted by the Constitution and was harmful to many citizens.

If Congress won't do their jobs, that will become very evident to a majority of people.

But the SCOTUS ruling was the correct one.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Yep, that power has now been handed to the permanent judiciary.

So much better!

No! Congress writes legislation, NOT unelected bureaucrats!!!!

 

[task0778]

No more broad interpretation of laws by the 3 letter fascist Government agencies.

I think that 1st video in the OP is wrong. The Chevron ruling does not mean that gov't agencies can no longer issue rules and policies based on ambiguous law. Instead, it means that when challenged in court, the agency does not get to be deferred to by the court; the court rather than the agency will determine whether the agency overstepped its bounds for how close to the original meaning of the law the agency's decision was. In other words, it is the court rather than the agency who will decide what is reasonable and what isn't when the law is vague or ambiguous. And that is the way it should be.

 

[Oddball]

No more broad interpretation of laws by the 3 letter fascist Government agencies.

I LOVE THIS RULING.

IT IS A BIG DEAL. Another part of getting our Republic back from the brink of failure.

 

[Foxfyre]

No more broad interpretation of laws by the 3 letter fascist Government agencies.

I LOVE THIS RULING.

IT IS A BIG DEAL. Another part of getting our Republic back from the brink of failure.

Maybe now people will be able to clear the brush around their homes and reduce the danger of disastrous damage from wildfires. In many places they are not now allowed to to that because that brush MIGHT be habitat for some endangered rat or something.

 

[Foxfyre]

A lot of Congresss people are really ticked off after this ruling.

Congress, when writing and formulating legislation, is going to have to actually do their job. Instead of just abdicating their authority to the Administrative state under the phony guise of "SME," they will have to actually bring these SME professionals into the legislative process and craft their laws properly.

It's going to eat into their sexual predation and grifting.

Congress won't do their jobs until we get a strong enough majority in constitutional legislators who put the power to make law back with the people's elected representatives rather than unelected faceless bureaucrats who now write most of the rules and regulations with force of law that people now have to endure. When that becomes law the agencies can still recommend rules and regulations but Congress will have to approve them with on the record votes.

The 90,402-page 2023 Federal Register contains 3,018 final rules and regulations. 90,402 pages in ONE YEAR ALONE!!! By contrast the Bible has roughly 900 pages give or take depending on what font is used. The original Constitution was a four page document.

Nobody on Earth has enough legal support to be able to know all the laws or rules, regulations controlling almost every aspect of our lives which gives a corrupt government unlimited opportunity to nail any political opponent or extort money from any citizen by dredging up some obscure infraction. The left wants to talk about dangers to our 'democracy'? There's a big one.

Elect Trump. He was having his agency heads remove two or more unnecessary or obsolete regulations for every new one implemented. No reason to think he would not continue that policy in a second term.

 

[1srelluc]

What are the chances of that actually happening in Congress today?

All this ruling will end up doing is moving the power from the experts at the agencies to the judges and justice of the Judicial branch.

Yeah, it's bonkers....You might actually have people with some common sense ruling on something for a change. You leftists can't have none of that now can you?

I see this as a huge win in rural areas where some leftist transplant moves in and is the only challenger in a permitting process, loses, and then gets the EPA involved.....Enjoy your new hog farm next door.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

In other words, it is the court rather than the agency who will decide what is reasonable and what isn't when the law is vague or ambiguous. And that is the way it should be.

Do judges have the knowledge to determine such things?

A SCOTUS Justice confused nitrous oxide and nitrogen oxide, and they are going to make the final call.

 

[Marener]

the agency overstepped its bounds for how close to the original meaning of the law the agency's decision was. In other words, it is the court rather than the agency who will decide what is reasonable and what isn't when the law is vague or ambiguous. And that is the way it should be.

Not really. This is a huge power grab by the courts who are in no position to weigh such technical matters that they have no expertise in.

The courts will wield unusually strong power by unelected and unaccountable judges who are appointed for life.

 

[task0778]

Do judges have the knowledge to determine such things?

A SCOTUS Justice confused nitrous oxide and nitrogen oxide, and they are going to make the final call.

I believe you are misrepresenting the truth here. A judge or justice hears the evidence from experts on both sides, and they do not need to know the technical aspects of any agency decision. What they need to know is what the applicable law says and whether or not the agency has overstepped their bounds in their determination of an ambiguous law. You tell me: if Trump is elected and his agencies create new rules and policies that are somewhat loosely based on ambiguous laws, are you going to be okay with any court that says those agencies' interpretation of such laws overrides whatever the plaintiff says? And the court should defer to the agencies? Somehow I doubt that.

 

[Marener]

A judge or justice hears the evidence from experts on both sides, and they do not need to know the technical aspects of any agency decision. What they need to know is what the applicable law says and whether or not the agency has overstepped their bounds in their determination of an ambiguous law.

Such decisions require technical knowledge of the issue. You can’t escape this fact.

You tell me: if Trump is elected and his agencies create new rules and policies that are somewhat loosely based on ambiguous laws, are you going to be okay with any court that says those agencies' interpretation of such laws overrides whatever the plaintiff says? And the court should defer to the agencies? Somehow I doubt that.

Isn’t that what presidents are elected for?

I have bigger concerns that judges behave in partisan manners and approve regulations from like minded presidents and override regulations for political opponents, essentially giving themselves veto authority over the voters of the country.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I believe you are misrepresenting the truth here. A judge or justice hears the evidence from experts on both sides, and they do not need to know the technical aspects of any agency decision. What they need to know is what the applicable law says and whether or not the agency has overstepped their bounds in their determination of an ambiguous law.

They need to understand what they are being told. They need to be able to determine which expert is making the most sense and is telling the truth.

You tell me: if Trump is elected and his agencies create new rules and policies that are somewhat loosely based on ambiguous laws, are you going to be okay with any court that says those agencies' interpretation of such laws overrides whatever the plaintiff says? And the court should defer to the agencies? Somehow I doubt that.

Trump or Biden or whomever, makes no difference. My current job I work a lot with statisticians from the Fed Govt, I would trust them over any judge

 

[Weatherman2020]

No more broad interpretation of laws by the 3 letter fascist Government agencies.

I LOVE THIS RULING.

IT IS A BIG DEAL. Another part of getting our Republic back from the brink of failure.

This ruling makes RvW look like child’s play. The swamp took a spear to the heart in this one.