|
Crows Turn Off posted:So SCOTUS is also expected to rule against the EPA next week, effectively preventing any government agency from creating and enforcing its own rules, basically halting any and all regulations created by the EPA that are not explicitly written by Congress?
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It's ultimately going to depend on how broadly the decision is written. But I expect it to be really bad. After the way they threw Roe in the dumpster, it's really not at all out of the question that they will say that administrative agencies are not allowed to make their own rules at all, which would mean that Congress would have to do it instead. And we all know how well that will go. So I fully expect them to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:Had some unsettling thoughts on how states are going to start to justify banning contraception after SCOTUS overturns that one too. They're not outlawing IVF, even though IVF involves creating multiple fertilized zygotes and discarding any others. There's no need whatsoever for logic, it's about controlling women not protecting babies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
Chamale posted:They're not outlawing IVF, even though IVF involves creating multiple fertilized zygotes and discarding any others. There's no need whatsoever for logic, it's about controlling women not protecting babies. In the chuddier states where a fertilized egg is considered a person, IVF treatment will be impossible because of the necessity to discard nonviable embryos. There are already fertility clinics, as of Friday, that have stopped providing services.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
gregday posted:In the chuddier states where a fertilized egg is considered a person, IVF treatment will be impossible because of the necessity to discard nonviable embryos. There are already fertility clinics, as of Friday, that have stopped providing services. My wife and I are doing IVF but our embryos are thankfully in NY state and not in FL where we live.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CasualLaw/status/1540906020016234496?s=20&t=4-yKCQ7HmQWGYfKrWtA7QQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 21:38
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Presbyterians have female ministers and were one of the first churches to perform same sex wedding ceremonies. You're conflating the liturgical politics of the church and the politics of the people who identify with the church, which is ridiculous. The Catholic church is by almost every measure more conservative or reactionary than the Presbytarian church. That has basically nothing to do with the relative politics of Americans who identify as Catholic vs. Americans who identify as Presbytarian.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It's ultimately going to depend on how broadly the decision is written. But I expect it to be really bad. After the way they threw Roe in the dumpster, it's really not at all out of the question that they will say that administrative agencies are not allowed to make their own rules at all, which would mean that Congress would have to do it instead. And we all know how well that will go. Tearing up Chevron deference has been a goal of the right wing ever since it was decided. How dare administrative agencies use their special knowledge to make regulations!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Might as well call the game after Chevron goes. No way things get back on track in time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 21:46
|
|
|
There are nine cases left! Biden v. Texas may be mooted so they punt on a ruling there OR they could basically eviscerate the supremacy clause. Chevron is going to go and the entire regulatory administration will be made void. It's going to be fun when everyone who works at the EPA is laid off because their entire office ceases to exist. We're going to be in a worse situation than the Articles of Confederacy soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 21:53
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Tearing up Chevron deference has been a goal of the right wing ever since it was decided. Mr. Nice! posted:Chevron is going to go and the entire regulatory administration will be made void. It's going to be fun when everyone who works at the EPA is laid off because their entire office ceases to exist. We're going to be in a worse situation than the Articles of Confederacy soon. I'm not American so it may seem weird that I follow this thread, except what you guys do affects what our guys are going to try to do in a couple years so I try. Unfortunately, it means I sometimes miss things. What's the Chevron decision and why do they want it dead? A real quick summary is fine, I wouldn't ask for a project - just in a sentence or two, what's up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
Prism posted:I'm not American so it may seem weird that I follow this thread, except what you guys do affects what our guys are going to try to do in a couple years so I try. Unfortunately, it means I sometimes miss things. "Chevron deference," or the "Chevron doctrine", means that federal administrative agencies get a lot of leeway in terms of how they interpret the laws they try to administer through regulations. Courts generally defer to the administrative agency (which is, you know, staffed by world-level subject matter experts whose entire job is to apply often very vague statutes in the public interest in minute areas not considered by Congress) if the agency's interpretation is "permissible". The formal standard from the case is basically: 1. Is Congress explicit about this? 2. If not, is the agency's interpretation of the statute not directly illegal? This is functionally necessary for administrative agencies and federal regulators to operate. Most federal administrative rulemaking, which requires a tremendous amount of interpreting statutes and building out actual infrastructure to apply the law, would become subject to lawsuits. Imagine being able to sue the FDA over their definition of "dairy" and the court gets to/has to interpret it from the ground up. And "nuts". And "adequate controls". And "proprietary information". And "centralized database". Doing away with Chevron would instantly paralyze almost all federal regulatory and administrative activity and create a huge gaping void of precedent that potentially be different for every regulatory sub-area. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jun 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
I would like a good read on Chevron as well, if there’s one easy to link to. It’s crazy that striking down Roe is not the worst thing in this session or the only one with decades-long consequences accelerating the collapse of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
Prism posted:I'm not American so it may seem weird that I follow this thread, except what you guys do affects what our guys are going to try to do in a couple years so I try. Unfortunately, it means I sometimes miss things. I would be astonished to learn that even 2% of Americans know what the Chevron doctrine is. Even if you limited the sample to college-educated Americans, or to Americans who voted in the most recent midterm elections etc. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jun 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
In practice, even this SCOTUS would probably try to construct an alternate standard from Chevron's, or just chip away at it with a wishy-washy exception, rather than bomb the entire government from orbit. In terms of actual human outcomes, just ending all judicial deference to administrative agencies would have a much higher cost than ending Roe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:"Chevron deference," or the "Chevron doctrine", means that federal administrative agencies get a lot of leeway in terms of how they interpret the laws they try to administer through regulations. Courts generally defer to the administrative agency (which is, you know, staffed by world-level subject matter experts whose entire job is to apply often very vague statutes in the public interest in minute areas not considered by Congress) if the agency's interpretation is "permissible". Thank you! This is a very clear explanation and I can see immediately how removing it would cause a whole lot of problems. I know we have a slightly different way of doing it up here (edit: I'm Canadian) but I couldn't tell you the details; either way there's some interpretation and review. God, losing the FDA would kick us up here too because of the RCC - the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council, we've been working to have matching regulatory transparency and drug review and such, which means that sometimes we defer to you guys because you're bigger and have more resources to do investigations. A lot of medical supplies are only created on one side or the other of the border and traded (we ran into trouble here with masks and vaccines early on in COVID, as we made masks but not vaccines on that scale) and it's important to have matching standards. That'd be a terrifying decision. Civilized Fishbot posted:I would be astonished to learn that even 2% of Americans know what the Chevron doctrine is. Even if you limited the sample to college-educated Americans, or to Americans who voted in the most recent midterm elections etc. This is also probably true, now that I know what it is, but I wasn't sure if it was something more well-known or publicized that I just missed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
I don't think the court will eliminate all administrative interpretations overnight. I think the conservatives want to add a 3rd step of "do 5 out of 9 unelected judges think the interpretation by the subject matter experts is wrong? If so, then we go with interpretation by the 5 out of 9 unelected and unaccountable judges instead of the subject matter experts". . They'll let the agencies have first crack at it since they don't care about the vast majority of rules, but if they see an important rule they don't like (because it hurts wealthy conservative business owners too much), they do not want to defer to the agency at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I don't think the court will eliminate all administrative interpretations overnight. I think the conservatives want to add a 3rd step of "do 5 out of 9 unelected judges think the interpretation by the subject matter experts is wrong? If so, then we go with interpretation by the 5 out of 9 unelected and unaccountable judges instead of the subject matter experts". This still has the effect of paralyzing many regulatory actions because the regulator will try to avoid the immense cost and risk of the lawsuit, and the regulated industry is able to sue and stay a lot more regulations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:In practice, even this SCOTUS would probably try to construct an alternate standard from Chevron's, or just chip away at it with a wishy-washy exception, rather than bomb the entire government from orbit. In terms of actual human outcomes, just ending all judicial deference to administrative agencies would have a much higher cost than ending Roe. People said they wouldn't repeal Roe, they'd just continue chipping away at abortion protections piecemeal as they have been, and then whoops. I wouldn't put it past this SCOTUS. Roberts has no power anymore to rein in the right wing if they want to do something counterproductive that will harm and rile up millions. Law podcasts I listen to have been talking about them repealing Chevron deference since before ACB was nominated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
Jesus, it's so hard not to fall into total despair. How the gently caress do we even counter this stuff? It seems like the only answer is to have an efficient, progressive, and responsive Congress in perpetuity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:In practice, even this SCOTUS would probably try to construct an alternate standard from Chevron's, or just chip away at it with a wishy-washy exception, rather than bomb the entire government from orbit. In terms of actual human outcomes, just ending all judicial deference to administrative agencies would have a much higher cost than ending Roe. They issued this decision first. They expect the decision they issue next week to be the bigger problem .
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This still has the effect of paralyzing many regulatory actions because the regulator will try to avoid the immense cost and risk of the lawsuit, and the regulated industry is able to sue and stay a lot more regulations. Cost and risk of a lawsuit? Wouldn’t that be a different federal group from rule makers? Now, if that other group in charge of defending the US puts as much weight on only winning slam dunks like prosecutors that could be an issue I guess? Hieronymous Alloy posted:They issued this decision first. They expect the decision they issue next week to be the bigger problem . I really suspect this isn’t a consideration. Thomas, Kavanaugh and Roberts probably just finished hashing out the concurrences and this how it landed. hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jun 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Cost and risk of a lawsuit? Wouldn’t that be a different federal group from rule makers? No. There are offices of counsel within each federal agency which are involved with both rulemaking and enforcement activity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Doing away with Chevron would instantly paralyze almost all federal regulatory and administrative activity and create a huge gaping void of precedent that potentially be different for every regulatory sub-area. Isn't paralyzing the federal government, with the idea of sending most of it back to the states, a pretty big objective of a not-insignificant amount of the GOP?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Isn't paralyzing the federal government, with the idea of sending most of it back to the states, a pretty big objective of a not-insignificant amount of the GOP? Not the corporate part, and not on this scale; they want federal rulemaking generally captured and minimized, not a howling chaos of possible expenses. You're thinking of the libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Not the corporate part, and not on this scale; they want federal rulemaking generally captured. You're thinking of the libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
Zophar posted:Jesus, it's so hard not to fall into total despair. How the gently caress do we even counter this stuff? It seems like the only answer is to have an efficient, progressive, and responsive Congress in perpetuity. Historically, the answer to fascist empires is communists, or communist revolutions. SourKraut posted:Isn't paralyzing the federal government, with the idea of sending most of it back to the states, a pretty big objective of a not-insignificant amount of the GOP? There still needs to be enough agencies left to work the grift machine, security forces to protect the grift machine, and a massive armed forces to use that grift machine to secure energy resources. Plus the paperwork to justify and direct those. Everything else can be privatized or destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
Zophar posted:Jesus, it's so hard not to fall into total despair. How the gently caress do we even counter this stuff? It seems like the only answer is to have an efficient, progressive, and responsive Congress in perpetuity. I can’t reiterate enough that the time to stop this was November 11, 2016. All of this was pretty much written on that day. All of this is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the results of that election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:35
|
|
|
More to the point, getting rid of Chevron means that agencies like the FAA can't decide things like safety rules any more. They have been put in charge of that by congress, but Congress, having This way congress does not get bogged down with writing every single regulation for air safety. Does congress really need to give a poo poo about if its 500 feet of seperation in class E airspace? Not at all. Does the FAA? Very much. They also get to enforce their rulings and they will come after pilots who break the regs. The right however, really hates a few agencies in paticular. If you guessed FTC, IRS or SEC then give yourself a star.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:It was Bannon's goal, and therefore Trump's goal, and therefore the goal of any SCOTUS justice he nominated. That's 3 of them right there. You're trying to tell me 2 of either Alito, Thomas, or Roberts wouldn't go along with it? The transitive property doesn't work that way; of the three, only Gorsuch has expressed strong opposition to Chevron. Roberts and Alito have expressed openness to narrowing it, not ending it. I believe Thomas has expressed support for it because it doesn't touch any of his particular crazy spots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
Cimber posted:More to the point, getting rid of Chevron means that agencies like the FAA can't decide things like safety rules any more. They have been put in charge of that by congress, but Congress, having Would overturning Chevron also gently caress the military? The department of energy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
External Organs posted:Would overturning Chevron also gently caress the military? The department of energy? Probably not. Likely it would be hobbled such that companies with enough resources could challenge administrative rules and win ten times out of ten, but most rules would be ignored or followed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
External Organs posted:Would overturning Chevron also gently caress the military? The department of energy? DoE yes, military I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I can’t reiterate enough that the time to stop this was November 11, 2016. All of this was pretty much written on that day. All of this is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the results of that election. Naw, it was 2008. Obama held the presidency, the court was 4-5 or 5-4, they held the house and the senate. They needed to kill the filibuster and then pass comprehensive voting rights (and medicare for all, and codify abortion, and any number of other good things that could get done with that supermajority). But they didn't, Ed Kennedy died and was replaced with a republican and now they couldn't break the filibuster anymore and oops all losses ever since. Even when they win they lose because they have no means of breaking the minority stranglehold and their last (for the forseeable future) chance to do that was 2008.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:Naw, it was 2008. Obama held the presidency, the court was 4-5 or 5-4, they held the house and the senate. They needed to kill the filibuster and then pass comprehensive voting rights (and medicare for all, and codify abortion, and any number of other good things that could get done with that supermajority). But they didn't, Ed Kennedy died and was replaced with a republican and now they couldn't break the filibuster anymore and oops all losses ever since. Even when they win they lose because they have no means of breaking the minority stranglehold and their last (for the forseeable future) chance to do that was 2008. The Democrats are not a monolithic bloc. They did not have the Senate votes to do any of those things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The Democrats are not a monolithic bloc. They did not have the Senate votes to do any of those things. Why didn’t Obama use his magical powers to hypnotize Ben Nelson? This is all his fault!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The Democrats are not a monolithic bloc. They did not have the Senate votes to do any of those things. They had 60 (59 after about 6 months), they definitely would have if they had killed the filibuster. I remember the ACA whipping they had to do, there was only like 3 idiots holding out for garbage legislation that could have been ignored entirely without the filibuster and the same would probably have held true for other things. They may not be a block but they could probably whip 51 nerds consistently to pass stuff, even decorum poisoned compromises would have been better than the 7 and a half years of stonewalling. Regardless, voting rights is the only thing that could have prevented this and the only time it could have been passed, at least in my memory, was 2008 with a dead filibuster. More on topic, if I were a betting person I would bet on them killing Chevron because this is the dumbest timeline and that would be the dumbest thing that could happen. Failboattootoot fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Jun 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:07
|
|
|
They didn’t have the votes to eliminate the filibuster, so the rest of your post is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
It’s weird that the democrats are perpetually hamstrung by arbitrary procedural rules but republicans just barrel through them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:They had 60 (59 after about 6 months), they definitely would have if they had killed the filibuster. I remember the ACA whipping they had to do, there was only like 3 idiots holding out for garbage legislation that could have been ignored entirely without the filibuster and the same would probably have held true for other things. They may not be a block but they could probably whip 51 nerds consistently to pass stuff, even decorum poisoned compromises would have been better than the 7 and a half years of stonewalling. The ACA was not equivalent to everything else you are asking for and required the comprehensive negotiations of everyone involved for a very extended period of time. "voting rights" was never the only thing that could have prevented this. Voting could have prevented this. Stereotype posted:It’s weird that the democrats are perpetually hamstrung by arbitrary procedural rules but republicans just barrel through them. The Republicans accomplished very little when they were in power. It is, however, much easer to undermine and destroy civic infrastructure than to develop it. The Republicans have, in addition to structural advantages in the Constitution that they have exploited toward minority rule, a significant number of constituencies who will vote for them reliably and without the same constituency splitting that they are able to exploit with wedge issues. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jun 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 00:17
|
|