Hacker News Reader

Comment by biofox | Hacker News Reader

This is the first credible defence of the decision I have read. Do you know of any other examples?

Chevron allowed massive regulatory changes whenever a new administration took over. At a time of high political polarization, no one should be asking that we defer to the whatever the current executive branch’s interpretation of the law is.

You may agree with the current President’s politics, but chances are you won’t agree with the next one’s.

https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/chevron-deference-vs-steady-admi...

That's more credible than the original point persnicker tried. And it's especially appropriate given the stated intention of the GOP to usher in an era where the entire bureaucracy of the federal government shifts to match the political ideology of the newly elected president. If that comes to pass, it will be an amazing back-and-forth switch every few years. Institutional inertia seems preferable in comparison.

> stated intention

Namely, Republican efforts to dramatically increase the scope of government employees that a president can appoint and fire on a whim. Basically a move towards the "spoils system" of rewarding political allies and donors with powerful or lucrative jobs.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/faq-the-cons...

It's fascinating to read the platform; there is the unspoken assumption that they will be installing all of these partisan bureaucrats that can keep on pushing their ideology even when their guy isn't president. As if it won't just be that each incoming president instantly fires every last one of them and then spends their entire term trying to fill those positions. Perhaps paralysis IS the point.

It's not as if judges are any more or less political. They're also not elected in most cases.

It's pretty easy for a company to pick a court district which will be favorable to them, regardless of the experts brought in.

The Chevron decision was only from 1984. Many red and blue states had already determined it wasn't appropriate at the state supreme court level. This is a decent overview from last year.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/28/ending-chevron-deferenc...

It's not credible.

George Will has an excellent article that defends the decision

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/10/supreme-c...

And a slightly older article (before the decision) hoping that it would turn out the way that it did:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/chevron-d...

The comment to your reply seems like the opposite of a credible defense. Was it edited in the interim between this comment and your reply?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com