|
FlamingLiberal posted:Well they’re going for it This is one of the cases that could overturn the regulatory system, right? Basically the idea that regulatory agencies can act relatively broadly within an area of remit unless expressly limited by congress?
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
Ravenfood posted:This is one of the cases that could overturn the regulatory system, right? Basically the idea that regulatory agencies can act relatively broadly within an area of remit unless expressly limited by congress? Killing Chevron would neuter the modern regulatory state
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:18
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:This is one of the cases that could overturn the regulatory system, right? Basically the idea that regulatory agencies can act relatively broadly within an area of remit unless expressly limited by congress? Chevron deference means that a judge doesn't get to second-guess an agency regulation, except in some exceptional circumstances. If a judge DOES get in a tizzy about, say, the EPA keeping the air clean, and second-guesses an agency regulation, it's easy to appeal to have that judge's ruling struck down under Chevron deference. If Chevron is eliminated, the appeals court won't have that hammer to say, "No you can't just strike down a clean water regulation just because the judge has a better idea" - the appeals court would instead need some factual basis (probably requiring its own fact finding) to strike down the crazy judge - and that's really not the purpose of appeals courts, they mostly rely on facts established at the trial court level. We would have to come up with some crazy new regime for how appeals courts could consider their own factual records because it makes no loving sense to let a single judge lock in the facts, overruling subject matter experts at agencies, for stuff like this. I'm also curious how they're going to establish 'res judicata' for this type of thing, because you could just keep rolling the dice until you get a judge willing to strike down the regulation.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:This is one of the cases that could overturn the regulatory system, right? Basically the idea that regulatory agencies can act relatively broadly within an area of remit unless expressly limited by congress? Sort of? What it would do is make it easier for courts to overturn decisions by regulatory agencies in areas where their governing statute is somewhat ambiguous. So the regulatory state would still exist and operate as it does today, with the exception that when someone challenges a regulator's action, they'll have an easier time getting a court to overturn the regulation. Killing Chevron would not be helpful, but it's not a core danger to the regulatory state in the way the non-delegation doctrine is.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
Chevron is actually not about second-guessing regulations in general, but rather about deferring to an agency’s interpretation of the statutes that it administers. Definitely very bad if overruled though.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Chevron is actually not about second-guessing regulations in general, but rather about deferring to an agency’s interpretation of the statutes that it administers. Definitely very bad if overruled though. Auer won't last if Chevron is killed
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:This is one of the cases that could overturn the regulatory system, right? Basically the idea that regulatory agencies can act relatively broadly within an area of remit unless expressly limited by congress? Overturning Chevron would pretty much cripple the US government at the behest of corporations, one of the long term goals of the right. Once they do so, you can expect a ton of lawsuits to be filed to their favorite Texas rubber stamp to overturn the last 50 or so years worth of regulations.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
It's preposterous that judges could think they can be subject-matter experts on what is the best regulation to implement. Sure, they can speak to whether a regulation violates the letter of the law or some right, but they not at all qualified to decide which of hundreds of possible regulatory schema best meet the goals of the legislation and practical reality.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
I mean, they don't think that. They think they can say that in bad faith to get away with getting bribed by corporations to eviscerate those pesky regulations making them pay extra to not have tons of horrible externalities affecting (especially very poor) Americans. Which, I mean, well... they're clearly not wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
In a nutshell, Chevron Deference says that when congress created a regulatory agency the statute did not need to spell out everything that the agency could regulate. So if the statute creating the EPA said "The EPA shall have the power to regulate clean air and water", that was the end of the story If the statute does not specifically spell out the powers of that agency, and instead said "The EPA shall have the power to pass regulations furthering protection of the environment", then per Chevron Deference the courts don't have the power to strike down regulations as long as that regulation seems to fall into the agency's area of specialty. So a random judge can't just say "Nope, the EPA can't call CO2 a dangerous gas and regulate coal power plants because congress didn't give them that power". Getting rid of this doctrine would make it that any right wing judge can remove any regulation he sees fit if the statute is vague enough.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It's preposterous that judges could think they can be subject-matter experts on what is the best regulation to implement. Sure, they can speak to whether a regulation violates the letter of the law or some right, but they not at all qualified to decide which of hundreds of possible regulatory schema best meet the goals of the legislation and practical reality. It's one of those professions where people who think, "I can't decide this, I'm not smart enough/don't know enough" don't end up being judges. So you're left with a giant pool of people who think they're smart, and Chevron/Auer was the only thing keeping them from loving around with the administrative state. It will probably swing both ways on the left/right spectrum for a while, but the core idea of tearing down government is much more advantageous to the right wing. And where the left wing does make process, don't be surprised when SCOTUS comes up with exceptions for why an ATF regulation was actually not ambiguous.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Devor posted:I'm also curious how they're going to establish 'res judicata' for this type of thing, because you could just keep rolling the dice until you get a judge willing to strike down the regulation. Why even roll the dice when you can just ensure your lawsuit ends up with your favourite Texas chud judge?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
SixFigureSandwich posted:Why even roll the dice when you can just ensure your lawsuit ends up with your favourite Texas chud judge? You won't get your case heard until five presidents from now if every single post-Chevron suit goes in front of that judge. Maybe President DeSantis will appoint a few more 30-year-old federalist avatars into that circuit so they can get more crazy standing-defying work done.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:I mean, they don't think that. They think they can say that in bad faith to get away with getting bribed by corporations to eviscerate those pesky regulations making them pay extra to not have tons of horrible externalities affecting (especially very poor) Americans. Which, I mean, well... they're clearly not wrong. They think they can issue whatever rulings they want and no matter how bad the ruling is they will never be held accountable for it or for overstepping their authority. Because it's true. They will not be impeached, arrested, chased out of town by an angry mob...etc.There's not nearly enough will, political or otherwise, to rein in the judiciary because the GOP has spent the better part of a century building to this point and judicial control is vital to ensure they remain in power since it gives them cover for things like gerrymandering and other targeted oppression.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It's preposterous that judges could think they can be subject-matter experts on what is the best regulation to implement. Sure, they can speak to whether a regulation violates the letter of the law or some right, but they not at all qualified to decide which of hundreds of possible regulatory schema best meet the goals of the legislation and practical reality. Neither is Congress, which is why Chevron deference is so important: it gave agencies staffed by experts the flexibility to go beyond the letter of the law.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Devor posted:It's one of those professions where people who think, "I can't decide this, I'm not smart enough/don't know enough" don't end up being judges. This wasn't the case- judges deciding themselves they don't have expertise is where this came from. Even now, I'd say the issue is more right-wing judge stuffing putting people in place who don't consider if they do or don't have the expertise. The only criteria is can a ruling consistent with conservative wants be given even the thinnest fig-leaf of plausibility. If they even feel like they need to consider plausibility.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Neither is Congress, which is why Chevron deference is so important: it gave agencies staffed by experts the flexibility to go beyond the letter of the law. And even if Congress was fully willing to rubberstamp the views of agency experts when necessary, the practical limits of their workload would vastly decrease regulatory activity
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
Cimber posted:In a nutshell, Chevron Deference says that when congress created a regulatory agency the statute did not need to spell out everything that the agency could regulate. Not quite. Chevron says that courts should defer to agency interpretations of their own rules. So if the agency decides "clean" means "no arsenic" a corporation can't win a lawsuit to get "clean" redefined as "some arsenic". Overturning Chevron deference means such a suit might be winnable.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Not quite. Chevron says that courts should defer to agency interpretations of their own rules. Chevron is agency interpretation of its "unclear" implementing statutes Auer is agency interpretation of its "unclear" regulations
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
Devor posted:You won't get your case heard until five presidents from now if every single post-Chevron suit goes in front of that judge. This is totally wrong. Most judges are timid as poo poo and won’t make any finding they’re even vaguely uncomfortable with unless they have an expert in the record telling them to. It’s just that there is a faction of right wing judges who will do anything to get their preferred outcomes.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Neither is Congress, which is why Chevron deference is so important: it gave agencies staffed by experts the flexibility to go beyond the letter of the law.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This is totally wrong. Most judges are timid as poo poo and won’t make any finding they’re even vaguely uncomfortable with unless they have an expert in the record telling them to. It’s just that there is a faction of right wing judges who will do anything to get their preferred outcomes. Having experts in record telling total nonsense is hardly an obstacle.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Going beyond the letter of the law is what gets you thrown in jail. The real crime is when you stop someone from pouring poison in the water supply.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Well they’re going for it
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Why is Jackson recused? That's the nail in the coffin.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
They kind of already killed it with MQD. Without chevron, things like federal drilling permits, purchases, and IRS/Post office fuckery become actionable in a court just like environmental or banking regs, so they’ll be in a position where outright killing the concept is less favorable than just doing what they did with the EPA WV suit and killing whatever they want with a 5 justice majority when it comes up. It will not shock me that we get some narrow 6-2 thing and then a bunch of FedSoc concurrences wishing they went farther from Alito and Gorsuch, but then again if they want to create some new test that totally isn’t Chevron but does chevron things like 75% of the time it wouldn’t shock me because these clowns absolutely are not voting themselves a bigger caseload. Devor posted:Auer won't last if Chevron is killed Auer is harder to kill because it’s what actually does a lot of what people think Chevron does. If chevron covers the enabling statute and domain of what an agency can touch, Auer lets an agency decide which hands it will use to do so. Like, chevron is contentious. Auer was 9-0 with Scalia writing and Thomas signed on.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:When she was in a lower court she heard the case previously I'm sure taking the moral high ground helps.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
In a shocking turn of events, it looks like the report that exonerated Rapey McBeerface might have had some fundamental flaws. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/28/brett-kavanaugh-investigation-omissions-senate-sexual-assault-claims
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I'm sure taking the moral high ground helps.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:In a shocking turn of events, it looks like the report that exonerated Rapey McBeerface might have had some fundamental flaws. This news has bowled me right out of my seat into a violent somersault through the sheer shock and surprise of the thing, and now I am pinwheeling into outer space while shouting "whaaaaaaaaaaaaAaat?"
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I'm sure taking the moral high ground helps. "When they aim low we aim high" yells apathetic political party that keeps losing ground to their opponents whose voterbase is literally dying out but more slowly than they're seizing power.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I'm sure taking the moral high ground helps. This is one of the few areas where justices on both sides of the aisle have been pretty consistent - they don't work on cases that they worked on previously. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/alito-kagan-top-justices-in-supreme-court-recusal-black-box-1 https://fixthecourt.com/2020/12/explain-reasons-justices-89-recusals-far-term/
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The real crime is when you stop someone from pouring poison in the water supply.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 22:12
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I'm pretty sure poisoning the water supply is already a crime covered directly by law. Where's the law that defines what specific substances are poison and how much of each you're allowed to dump in the river before you've poisoned it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:If a single election is able to do this much then maybe it’s worth dispensing the indefensible judicial system. It does sound like "vote!" is a sound strategy though, possibly even "vote blue no matter who"
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It does sound like "vote!" is a sound strategy though, possibly even "vote blue no matter who" Necessary, but not sufficient
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Necessary, but not sufficient Never said it was sufficient.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
Great system we have here https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/1653139688943677440 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Great system we have here Then again either Scalia or Thomas had previously said in an opinion that actual innocence doesn't mean you don't get to escape punishment if the system 'still worked' or whatever
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:21 |
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Great system we have here Antonin Scalia in Herrera v Collins 1983 posted:Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached. quote:Justice Scalia's words regarding that decision are often quoted out of context, leaving readers with the mistaken impression that he believed it was perfectly acceptable for our legal system to execute people whom we knew to be innocent. In the fuller context, what he was actually expressing was that once a person had been fairly convicted and sentenced in court, and had exhausted all his possible avenues of appeal, a last-minute claim of innocence was not by itself sufficient grounds for further delaying the carrying out of the sentence. The real kicker in that opinion however, is this bit: Judge Antonin ‘man why is it so hot here in Heaven’ Scalia posted:I nonetheless join the entirety of the Court's opinion, including the final portion, because there is no legal error in deciding a case by assuming arguendo that an asserted constitutional right exists, and because I can understand, or at least am accustomed to, the reluctance of the present Court to admit publicly that Our Perfect Constitution lets stand any injustice, much less the execution of an innocent man who has received, though to no avail, all the process that our society has traditionally deemed adequate. With any luck, we shall avoid ever having to face this embarrassing question again, since it is improbable that evidence of innocence as convincing as today's opinion requires would fail to produce an executive pardon. Once again, gently caress Antonin Scalia and if there is a hell this man is in it.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2023 02:21
|
|
