Hacker News Reader

Comment by lacy_tinpot | Hacker News Reader

> It would literally be impossible for congress to make a law covering every single nuance agencies are tasked with.

What does that even mean? Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no? If not... well I mean that's straight up irresponsible.

The other part of this I don't get is that people have been complaining about the "Revolving Door" problem in these agencies for a long time now. They're not sacred, and further we know they're not sacred because we've been complaining about their corruption. So why pretend they're sacred now? Why are there no solutions?

The problem with a lot of the called "progressives" is that they've adhered to a different kind of conservatism, where while the ideals are progressive, every single instance of actually implementing those ideals are conservative and play to old power structure.

Where are the progressive iconoclasts?

View on HN

> > It would literally be impossible for congress to make a law covering every single nuance agencies are tasked with.

> What does that even mean? Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no? If not... well I mean that's straight up irresponsible.

It means the supreme court just gutted the agencies ability to make and enforce regulations. The agencies have lots of experts who know what they're supposed to be regulating they just aren't allowed to do that in many cases now. Unless congress writes things explicitly into law you can expect legal challenges to just about any regulation the agencies try to put forward.

> The other part of this I don't get is that people have been complaining about the "Revolving Door" problem in these agencies for a long time now. They're not sacred, and further we know they're not sacred because we've been complaining about their corruption. So why pretend they're sacred now?

Why do you think these two issues are opposed? The answer to weak and lax regulation isn't to remove the ability to regulate.

> Why are there no solutions?

What solutions are you proposing? Do you think your solutions have any chance of getting anywhere in the current political climate? Who benefits from the status quo and how much effort will they put in to block a solution?

This is the typical response to demanding actual action. It's a litany of excuses that both decries ineptitude and at the same time expresses satisfaction with it. It's ridiculous.

Ultimately I hope everyone that shares this sentiment really tries to introspect, read what they write/say, and see how deeply flawed the arguments are. It directly leads to strategic blunders.

In all honesty what does it really take for people to see the reality of their situation?

The left no longer has any will whatsoever, no courage, no real "revolutionary" spirit at all. It is decrepit, meek, and unwilling to change because it's paralyzed by fear (and that's being generous). It has no real political positions that people are demanding, because those political positions are in direct opposition to the majority of the players within the party that claims to represent progressives/left. It doesn't. It's a Conservative Party that has progressive talking points.

That is not how you run anything. That's not how you run politics, that's not even how you live a life. Don't let fear of failure mean complete inaction.

Taking risks is absolutely paramount, otherwise those at the margins willing to take risks, will eventually win out.

s/left/right/g

It’s worth pointing out the irony of this position, which is that liberals decried Chevron at the time it was decided because it required deferring to a narrow interpretation of the Clean Air Act by the Reagan EPA. Progressive organizations are always suing the EPA, because regulatory agencies are inherently centrist and resist change in either direction.

What this decision means is that Sierra Club, NRDC, etc., can now litigate in the Ninth Circuit and push for more favorable interpretations of environmental laws. And the next Republican administration can’t take that away, the way they could under Chevron, which allowed agencies to change their interpretation of the same law for no reason.

> What does that even mean? Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no? If not... well I mean that's straight up irresponsible.

It's unrealistic to expect agencies to implement flawless regulations, especially when they're often underfunded. Complex situations will always have loopholes, but letting corporations exploit them freely doesn't benefit society. Sure, agency overreach can be a problem, but in this case, I think the lack of regulation is more concerning.

> The problem with a lot of the called "progressives" is that they've adhered to a different kind of conservatism, where while the ideals are progressive, every single instance of actually implementing those ideals are conservative and play to old power structure.

I agree with your point about the conservative/progressive labels. People's views are nuanced - they might want to maintain the status quo on some issues, push for progressive change on others, or even revert to past practices. It's not black and white, even though we feel that way cause our society is getting more polarized.

I don’t think OP said that agencies have to make flawless regulations. They said that congress can literally make the Chevron Doctrine law. Giving agencies the power that they had before this ruling

Generally speaking they are considered "unelectable" and thus mostly exert influence indirectly if at all. Especially in the United States, even many "progressive" causes that have become relatively mainstream (in terms of popular support) are viewed by most people as having very little actual political representation due to the two-party system, and this has been well-understood by most people who call themselves progressives for several decades.

> Supposedly these agencies already know what they're tasked with, no?

I don't even see why such a law would have to name any agency. It could be a generic, "yes Supreme Court we do intend to let the executive fill in the blank in the law through regulations - that's why we call them regulations".

Even if that failed (perhaps on constitutional grounds), they could periodically accept agency regulation revisions and pass them into law.

They could, but with a party like the GOP it won’t happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com