This may end up the most damaging SCOTUS decision of the term. And it wasn't immunity.

[Doc7505]

The two fictions at the heart of the devastating Chevron doctrine ruling​

Although it won’t get as much attention as some of the other rulings in this term, the court’s decision could end up having the most significant long-term impact.​

Opinion | The two fictions at the heart of the devastating Chevron doctrine ruling

Although it won’t get as much attention as some of the other rulings in this term, the court’s decision could end up having the most significant long-term impact.

www.msnbc.com

3 Jul 2024 ~~ By Steve Vladeck


Imagine that Congress passes a statute authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency to require permits whenever material alterations are made to a “major stationary source” of air pollution (or new ones are created). So far, so good. Now imagine that a power plant near your home has three smokestacks. Does that count as one “major stationary source” or three? And what makes a stationary source “major”? Beyond these substantive questions is a procedural one: Who should resolve these matters? Unelected federal judges, who may have no particular expertise in environmental law, or the federal agency staffed with scientific and policy experts who do?
The smokestack example is a simplified version of the facts of a real 1984 case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, in which the Supreme Court held that, if a statutory term is ambiguous, courts should generally defer to an executive branch agency’s reasonable interpretation. In Chevron, that meant upholding a Reagan-era rule that defined “major stationary source” on a plantwide basis (back to our earlier example, one source, not three). The animating principle behind Chevron is that, given the range and depth of federal regulations, Congress can’t be expected to define every aspect of every agency’s power with surgical specificity. And it made more sense to let the agencies — to whom Congress delegated the relevant power in the first place — provide any final missing details. As the court explained, “Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of the Government.”
On Friday, in an ideologically divided 6-3 ruling penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court unceremoniously overruled the Chevron precedent. And although it won’t get as much attention as Friday’s other rulings in the Jan. 6 obstruction case or the Grants Pass homelessness case (neither of which will get much attention in light of Monday’s ruling in the Trump immunity case), the court’s decision overruling Chevron, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo could end up having the most significant long-term impact.
~Snip~
There are somewhere north of 430 federal agencies; even if Congress devoted one calendar day each year to one agency, it wouldn’t get to all of them. And even if it could, some agencies enforce dozens of statutes. Could even the most hard-working, institutionally responsible Congress be expected to define in detail exactly what does and doesn’t count as a “major stationary source of pollution?”
~Snip~
That may not seem like a huge deal compared to, for example, whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his alleged role in the storming of the Capitol. But federal regulators and regulations are all around us inspecting our meat; ensuring that everyday products, from cribs to cars, are manufactured to minimum safety standards; looking out for public health; and on and on and on.
Agencies aren’t perfect. But neither are judges. And if the question is whether technical questions should be resolved by those with the relevant expertise who work for presidents for whom we have voted, or by generalist judges selected (and sometimes hand-picked) by plaintiffs with an ideological axe to grind, the answer shouldn’t have been this hard. Deference to executive branch agencies is something we’ll miss when (as of last Friday) it’s gone.


Commentary:
"Agencies aren’t perfect."
Unfortunately Federal Agencies have been and are being politized to force agendas such as man-made climate change. This SCOTUS decision allows citizens to have a say in the fairness and science of agency regulations, which Neo-Marxiost Democrats refuse to allow as it slows the advance to communism.
The way PMSNBC is reacting basically proves SCOTUS got it right.
Here's a good example:

MSN

www.msn.com

To save spotted owls, US officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of another owl species.​

 

[Orangecat]

I oppose unelected bureaucrats having the power to make regulations that have the power of law. If that slows the relentless march towards an environmental dictatorship, so be it.

 

[Care4all]

Judges should not be making those decisions.

 

[Doc7505]

I oppose unelected bureaucrats having the power to make regulations that have the power of law. If that slows the relentless march towards an environmental dictatorship, so be it.

~~~~~~
In particular as a Regulatory Compliance Specialist for more than 20 years, I ran into many obstacles thrown up by the EPA from shipping (Import/export) goods to selling Real Estate, or construction of buildings to disposal.
Another example was the Protection of Stratospheric Ozone 40 CFR Part 82.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Judges should not be making those decisions.

Hell, you dont even care what happens to US women and children by illegal alien murderers and rapists...Crawl back into your hole you slimy creature.

 

[struth]

The two fictions at the heart of the devastating Chevron doctrine ruling​

Although it won’t get as much attention as some of the other rulings in this term, the court’s decision could end up having the most significant long-term impact.​

Opinion | The two fictions at the heart of the devastating Chevron doctrine ruling

Although it won’t get as much attention as some of the other rulings in this term, the court’s decision could end up having the most significant long-term impact.

www.msnbc.com

3 Jul 2024 ~~ By Steve Vladeck


Imagine that Congress passes a statute authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency to require permits whenever material alterations are made to a “major stationary source” of air pollution (or new ones are created). So far, so good. Now imagine that a power plant near your home has three smokestacks. Does that count as one “major stationary source” or three? And what makes a stationary source “major”? Beyond these substantive questions is a procedural one: Who should resolve these matters? Unelected federal judges, who may have no particular expertise in environmental law, or the federal agency staffed with scientific and policy experts who do?
The smokestack example is a simplified version of the facts of a real 1984 case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, in which the Supreme Court held that, if a statutory term is ambiguous, courts should generally defer to an executive branch agency’s reasonable interpretation. In Chevron, that meant upholding a Reagan-era rule that defined “major stationary source” on a plantwide basis (back to our earlier example, one source, not three). The animating principle behind Chevron is that, given the range and depth of federal regulations, Congress can’t be expected to define every aspect of every agency’s power with surgical specificity. And it made more sense to let the agencies — to whom Congress delegated the relevant power in the first place — provide any final missing details. As the court explained, “Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of the Government.”
On Friday, in an ideologically divided 6-3 ruling penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court unceremoniously overruled the Chevron precedent. And although it won’t get as much attention as Friday’s other rulings in the Jan. 6 obstruction case or the Grants Pass homelessness case (neither of which will get much attention in light of Monday’s ruling in the Trump immunity case), the court’s decision overruling Chevron, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo could end up having the most significant long-term impact.
~Snip~
There are somewhere north of 430 federal agencies; even if Congress devoted one calendar day each year to one agency, it wouldn’t get to all of them. And even if it could, some agencies enforce dozens of statutes. Could even the most hard-working, institutionally responsible Congress be expected to define in detail exactly what does and doesn’t count as a “major stationary source of pollution?”
~Snip~
That may not seem like a huge deal compared to, for example, whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his alleged role in the storming of the Capitol. But federal regulators and regulations are all around us inspecting our meat; ensuring that everyday products, from cribs to cars, are manufactured to minimum safety standards; looking out for public health; and on and on and on.
Agencies aren’t perfect. But neither are judges. And if the question is whether technical questions should be resolved by those with the relevant expertise who work for presidents for whom we have voted, or by generalist judges selected (and sometimes hand-picked) by plaintiffs with an ideological axe to grind, the answer shouldn’t have been this hard. Deference to executive branch agencies is something we’ll miss when (as of last Friday) it’s gone.


Commentary:
"Agencies aren’t perfect."
Unfortunately Federal Agencies have been and are being politized to force agendas such as man-made climate change. This SCOTUS decision allows citizens to have a say in the fairness and science of agency regulations, which Neo-Marxiost Democrats refuse to allow as it slows the advance to communism.
The way PMSNBC is reacting basically proves SCOTUS got it right.
Here's a good example:

MSN

www.msn.com

To save spotted owls, US officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of another owl species.​

Judges don’t make the decisions on their own, the parties present their cases to the court. They can bring in experts etc and it might not just be a judge, but a jury.

Giving the executive branch the ability to determine what is law, is giving them a power beyond what the constitution permits.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I oppose unelected bureaucrats having the power to make regulations that have the power of law. If that slows the relentless march towards an environmental dictatorship, so be it.

Is having unelected judges and justices doing it any better?

 

[struth]

Is having unelected judges and justices doing it any better?

Yes because the judicial branch is mandated by the constitution to say what is the law and is a check as a seperate co-equal branch of govt on the executive

Just how much power do you want to give the president? You’ve made him a director when he is enforcing law, saying what is law, and also making law through his agencies

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You’ve made him a director when he is enforcing law, saying what is law, and also making law through his agencies

This from the moron that supports him being above the law for all "official actions"?

what is it like going though life with no sense of irony?

 

[Votto]

Judges should not be making those decisions.

Lordy, Lordy, somebody impeach them white boys on SCOTUS!!!

 

[struth]

This from the moron that supports him being above the law for all "official actions"?

what is it like going though life with no sense of irony?

Um yeah. I think the govt shouldn’t be criminal liabile for official actions. It’s not that hard a concept to grasp, it’s been around for hundreds of years.

How in the world could anyone be arrested if the president and dea agents could be charged with assault everytime they arrested a drug kingpin?

Your comment highlights you simply have no idea what govt is

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Um yeah. I think the govt shouldn’t be criminal liabile for official actions. It’s not that hard a concept to grasp, it’s been around for hundreds of years.

It has indeed, which has allowed our leaders to get away literally with murder, all in the name of freedom.

How in the world could anyone be arrested if the president and dea agents could be charged with assault everytime they arrested a drug kingpin?

They are following the law when they arrest the drug kingpin. They are not following the law when they give support and aid to a drug kingpin running a country.

Your comment highlights you simply have no idea what govt is

We do have a very different idea of what Govt is. Which is why you support the huge overbearing nanny state and I do not.

 

[struth]

It has indeed, which has allowed our leaders to get away literally with murder, all in the name of freedom.



They are following the law when they arrest the drug kingpin. They are not following the law when they give support and aid to a drug kingpin running a country.



We do have a very different idea of what Govt is. Which is why you support the huge overbearing nanny state and I do not.

1) yes the govt can get away with murder when they kill people when acting within their official capacity…ie when a drug king pin starts firing at dei agents

2) you seem to be changing your tune here, assault is assault…right or are you now saying it’s not when govt is acting i their official capacity?

3) yes we do, you want an all powerful executive branch making all the decisions, but you just want them to be the “right ones” ie ones you agree with. I am not naive enough or selfish enough to believe govt acts or will act that way. Because of my belief, I support a limited govt, one where power is divided. I also believe our freedoms fail when an elected official can go after the prior admin and jail rhem cause they don’t like them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1) yes the govt can get away with murder when they kill people when acting within their official capacity…ie when a drug king pin starts firing at dei agents

It is not murder when that happens. They are following the laws of the land, thus it is not murder as murder is an unlawful killing.

2) you seem to be changing your tune here, assault is assault…right or are you now saying it’s not when govt is acting i their official capacity?

I have not changed anything. The Govt is fine when it follows its own laws. When the leaders are allowed to break those laws as part of their "official capacity", that is a bad thing.

It is telling that you cannot understand this.

3) yes we do, you want an all powerful executive branch making all the decisions, but you just want them to be the “right ones” ie ones you agree with. I am not naive enough or selfish enough to believe govt acts or will act that way. Because of my belief, I support a limited govt, one where power is divided. I also believe our freedoms fail when an elected official can go after the prior admin and jail rhem cause they don’t like them.

You support the highest office in the land being above the laws of the land. That is the opposite of a limited Govt.

 

[struth]

It is not murder when that happens. They are following the laws of the land, thus it is not murder as murder is an unlawful killing.



I have not changed anything. The Govt is fine when it follows its own laws. When the leaders are allowed to break those laws as part of their "official capacity", that is a bad thing.

It is telling that you cannot understand this.



You support the highest office in the land being above the laws of the land. That is the opposite of a limited Govt.

Ah so when they are doing their official acts…gotcha, then they should have immunity…like the court said

So why you crying?

Haha no I don’t, I support just want you and the court said. They are immune in their official acts

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ah so when they are doing their official acts…gotcha, then they should have immunity…like the court said

So why you crying?

Because they should not have immunity when they break the law as part of their "official acts".

Why do you want your leader to be above the laws you have to follow?

Haha no I don’t, I support just want you and the court said. They are immune in their official acts

Even when those acts break the law, and you are not only ok with that, you are arguing that is the way it should be.

Be careful what you ask for, you may not like the outcome.

 

[struth]

Because they should not have immunity when they break the law as part of their "official acts".

Why do you want your leader to be above the laws you have to follow?



Even when those acts break the law, and you are not only ok with that, you are arguing that is the way it should be.

Be careful what you ask for, you may not like the outcome.

The govt shouldn’t, but they in fact do, as we both agreed. That’s why they have criminal prosecution immunity.

I never said it should be.

I often don’t like the outcome of what govt does.

 

[Care4all]

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan said the Chevron decision has “served as a cornerstone of administrative law” for 40 years.

“Congress knows that it does not — in fact cannot — write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve, and gaps that some other actor will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actor to be the responsible agency, not a court,” Kagan wrote. “A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. In recent years, this Court has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies.”

 

[22lcidw]

It has indeed, which has allowed our leaders to get away literally with murder, all in the name of freedom.



They are following the law when they arrest the drug kingpin. They are not following the law when they give support and aid to a drug kingpin running a country.



We do have a very different idea of what Govt is. Which is why you support the huge overbearing nanny state and I do not.

We are seeing Politics, particularly Prog Politics in what it is. Is Joe leaving? Is Joe staying? Spin, Lies and Cover Stories. With the citizens disrespected. And perhaps replace with 2nd and 3rd world mediocrity compared to Joe. Of course, we have seen that from the time Joe was installed from the steal in 2020. The huge nanny state exists and most of us suck on the tit to some degree. The costs are slowly spiraling out of control. That Supreme Court decision was made because of the Corrupted Progressives wanting to destroy Trump. We all know it. The endless Spin, Lies and Cover Stories proves it.

 

[alang1216]

The two fictions at the heart of the devastating Chevron doctrine ruling​

Although it won’t get as much attention as some of the other rulings in this term, the court’s decision could end up having the most significant long-term impact.​

Opinion | The two fictions at the heart of the devastating Chevron doctrine ruling

Although it won’t get as much attention as some of the other rulings in this term, the court’s decision could end up having the most significant long-term impact.

www.msnbc.com

3 Jul 2024 ~~ By Steve Vladeck


Imagine that Congress passes a statute authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency to require permits whenever material alterations are made to a “major stationary source” of air pollution (or new ones are created). So far, so good. Now imagine that a power plant near your home has three smokestacks. Does that count as one “major stationary source” or three? And what makes a stationary source “major”? Beyond these substantive questions is a procedural one: Who should resolve these matters? Unelected federal judges, who may have no particular expertise in environmental law, or the federal agency staffed with scientific and policy experts who do?
The smokestack example is a simplified version of the facts of a real 1984 case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, in which the Supreme Court held that, if a statutory term is ambiguous, courts should generally defer to an executive branch agency’s reasonable interpretation. In Chevron, that meant upholding a Reagan-era rule that defined “major stationary source” on a plantwide basis (back to our earlier example, one source, not three). The animating principle behind Chevron is that, given the range and depth of federal regulations, Congress can’t be expected to define every aspect of every agency’s power with surgical specificity. And it made more sense to let the agencies — to whom Congress delegated the relevant power in the first place — provide any final missing details. As the court explained, “Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of the Government.”
On Friday, in an ideologically divided 6-3 ruling penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court unceremoniously overruled the Chevron precedent. And although it won’t get as much attention as Friday’s other rulings in the Jan. 6 obstruction case or the Grants Pass homelessness case (neither of which will get much attention in light of Monday’s ruling in the Trump immunity case), the court’s decision overruling Chevron, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo could end up having the most significant long-term impact.
~Snip~
There are somewhere north of 430 federal agencies; even if Congress devoted one calendar day each year to one agency, it wouldn’t get to all of them. And even if it could, some agencies enforce dozens of statutes. Could even the most hard-working, institutionally responsible Congress be expected to define in detail exactly what does and doesn’t count as a “major stationary source of pollution?”
~Snip~
That may not seem like a huge deal compared to, for example, whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his alleged role in the storming of the Capitol. But federal regulators and regulations are all around us inspecting our meat; ensuring that everyday products, from cribs to cars, are manufactured to minimum safety standards; looking out for public health; and on and on and on.
Agencies aren’t perfect. But neither are judges. And if the question is whether technical questions should be resolved by those with the relevant expertise who work for presidents for whom we have voted, or by generalist judges selected (and sometimes hand-picked) by plaintiffs with an ideological axe to grind, the answer shouldn’t have been this hard. Deference to executive branch agencies is something we’ll miss when (as of last Friday) it’s gone.


Commentary:
"Agencies aren’t perfect."
Unfortunately Federal Agencies have been and are being politized to force agendas such as man-made climate change. This SCOTUS decision allows citizens to have a say in the fairness and science of agency regulations, which Neo-Marxiost Democrats refuse to allow as it slows the advance to communism.
The way PMSNBC is reacting basically proves SCOTUS got it right.
Here's a good example:

MSN

www.msn.com

To save spotted owls, US officials plan to kill hundreds of thousands of another owl species.​

When I was growing up in NYC, the air was so polluted it was like smoking a pack of cigs a day and the rivers were devoid of life. I don't think going backwards is a very good idea.