Chevron Doctrine

[ripvanwinkle]

I've been hearing about this for a few years now. I never looked into it until I read this.  www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/supreme-court-signals-it-could-limit-some-powers-of-federal-agencies/ar-AA1n8VbK?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=e25046e237814531b9acf8c5b456047e&ei=82

If I read this right it would limit agencies ability to make rules or laws. I thought only congress could make these decisions. I'm for less govt so this sounds good.

[pulmonarymd]

You realize that if that case is decided the way you want it to be, that if Trump is elected he would be unable to change immigration policies without Congress’s approval. Still good with it?

[Tennesseer]

Jan 17, 2024 19:49:55 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

I've been hearing about this for a few years now. I never looked into it until I read this.  www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/supreme-court-signals-it-could-limit-some-powers-of-federal-agencies/ar-AA1n8VbK?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=e25046e237814531b9acf8c5b456047e&ei=82

If I read this right it would limit agencies ability to make rules or laws. I thought only congress could make these decisions. I'm for less govt so this sounds good.

So you want Congress controlling the quality of your tap water and not the EPA (for example) which currently tests for water contaminants and quality?

What house rep or senator in Congress do you propose to do the water testing for the whole country?

[tractor]

It's a world I live in every day, and it's hard to describe in just a few words. However, in general, the previous ruling means that in the absence of legal guidance, the best professional judgement of government employees overrides everything else (Chevron deference). The problem is, depending on who it is, there might be considerable personal opinion (instead of actual facts) that dictate the outcome. The courts simply defer to the government because they are always impartial...🙄.

This allows the rules to change depending on who's in charge. It's as maddening as you could expect when you're dealing with federal regulations (and their interpretation) on a daily basis. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[billisonboard]

I found this link helpful in understanding the issue: Chevron deference In part:

The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency.

[ripvanwinkle]

Jan 17, 2024 20:08:34 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

You realize that if that case is decided the way you want it to be, that if Trump is elected he would be unable to change immigration policies without Congress’s approval. Still good with it?

I thought congress is the only body that could change the immigration policy. Not some unelected bureaucrat. Trump could propose changes and congress acts on them.

[dondubble]

Jan 17, 2024 23:31:29 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Jan 17, 2024 20:08:34 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

You realize that if that case is decided the way you want it to be, that if Trump is elected he would be unable to change immigration policies without Congress’s approval. Still good with it?

I thought congress is the only body that could change the immigration policy. Not some unelected bureaucrat. Trump could propose changes and congress acts on them.

Two problems there rip.

1. Trump isn’t the President.
2. Your repo-con Congress doesn’t want to do anything about it.

thehill.com/homenews/house/4413501-mike-johnson-immigration-reform/

[djAdvocate]

we continue to unwind the clock.

this anarchism is utterly stupid.

it puts us at the mercy of people like Trump and Musk.

who wants that? who trusts that?

are we really that stupid?

i would suggest reading up on the Bhopal disaster, if you want to know where this lands us. dismantling oversight will lead to many such disasters.

[pulmonarymd]

Jan 17, 2024 23:31:29 GMT -5 ripvanwinkle said:

Jan 17, 2024 20:08:34 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

You realize that if that case is decided the way you want it to be, that if Trump is elected he would be unable to change immigration policies without Congress’s approval. Still good with it?

I thought congress is the only body that could change the immigration policy. Not some unelected bureaucrat. Trump could propose changes and congress acts on them.

Congress approved the child separation policy? They approved the wait in Mexico policy? Did Congress approve of any of Biden’s immigration policies?

Given what Congress has become, the inability to pass anything, do you ress as on want them to have to deal with all the minutiae that these agencies deal with daily? For example, if a new designer narcotic is manufactured and is causing overdose deaths, does it require an act of Congress for g th he DEA or FDA to do anything about it?

[djAdvocate]

some left wing commentator said this on the radio yesterday:

"they don't want to solve the immigration problem. to solve it would eliminate their main tool for campaigning- that it is hopelessly broken and that the government is to blame"

i think that is pretty close to exactly right.

the only incentive to fix it is on the left.
because it is is the right thing to do.
and because they are nominally "pro-government".

it sounds weird to even say that.
we have one anti-government party.
nuts.