> Why shouldn't experts in the relevant areas make their best determination?
Because experts are often myopic and terrible policy makers. Also experts hired by federal agencies will likely tend to favor interpretations that the agency prefers.
Because experts are often myopic and terrible policy makers. Also experts hired by federal agencies will likely tend to favor interpretations that the agency prefers.
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/factoring-criteria...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTIDz8jflZE
https://thedailyrecord.com/2023/08/21/atf-gun-rights-advocat...
The EPA has greatly expanded the definition of wetlands.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
And of course this example being discussed. There are probably many more we haven't heard about. You can agree or disagree with these policies, but they need to be voted on by congress. These agencies seem to be out of control and should be reigned in. Checks and balances are important.
But they are not the only agency that is evil, the CDC asserting the right over all housing in the US to prevent evictions was insane. The FDA not allowing terminal patients who have exhausted all other treatment options to try anything experimental. The list goes on.
Congress does exist. If an agency is acting against the will of Congress Congress can immediately stop it.
You don’t need courts to come in and tell the agency what Congress means when Congress is right there and meets far more often than the courts and has a much quicker process than the courts, where decisions may go up the court chain all the way up to the supreme court.
Congress is different every year. The totality of congress members that negotiated and passed the law is likely no longer seated. Also this suggestion completely circumvents presidential veto power. It's also highly prone to abuse.
>You don’t need courts to come in and tell the agency what Congress means when Congress is right there and meets far more often than the courts and has a much quicker process than the courts, where decisions may go up the court chain all the way up to the supreme court.
That's literally what the SCOTUS is for, to interpret laws.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm....
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/flash-car...
Specifically recently I was affected by shortages of stimulant medications for treatment of ADHD. These shortages appeared to be due to secret DEA limits. Generally Americans getting these medications are treated like suspects first and foremost, in part due to the DEAs pressure on pharmacies.
Here’s one of the experts describing it:
> The exact limit for each > pharmacy is kept secret in > order to prevent pharmacists > from gaming the system, > according to Krista Tongring, > leader of the DEA compliance > practice at Guidepost > Solutions and a former agency > attorney.
Note the original problem to be solved was opioid overprescribing. Instead of solving that issue directly the DEA experts decided to restrict all controlled substances with murky limits for unclear reasons. Certainly not to help Americans with ADHD, narcolepsy, anxiety, or a host of other genuine and often debilitating conditions.
The DEA’s only concern is “suspicious orders” and limiting the drugs. Hence a case of one set of experts being myopic in the face of the broader health care system in the US.
https://fortune.com/2023/04/03/xanax-adderall-rules-patients...
While many wish to live in some fantasy world (hello Libertarians) in our current system, getting rid of the Chevron doctrine will effectively lead to greatly increased deregulation of industry, which will have many serious undesirable side effects, and which will mainly benefit industry and the wealthy and the expense of ordinary citizens.
It's also impractical. Agencies need the ability to move quickly to deal with new threats and technologies without waiting for a paralyzed congress to pass laws to deal with new or even existing problems. (I assume Congress would speak w experts anyway).
That said, of course, in an ideal world, experts would be heeded and cynical politics would not play a part in science-based policy decisions (e.g. how much PFA to allow in drinking water). But that's not the world we live in. We need regulation and experts and we need to improve on the system we have, but not eliminate the Chevron doctrine.
Chevron is reasonable--even obvious.
Example: https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/20/24044179/supreme-court-ch...
ah yes so all the technocrat experts who are undoubtably part of the revolving door between industry & government should just be policing themselves justified by "emergency" exigencies
why are people so keen to defend regulatory capture as not only inevitable but seemingly good?
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/we-are-witnessing-...
My point is precisely that a regulatory-captured system is far worse than no govt regulatory system (which does not preclude non-govt systems).