Hacker News Reader

Comment by cooper_ganglia | Hacker News Reader

It's honestly very difficult for me to understand why some people don't prioritize the judiciary's constitutional role in interpreting laws and the separation of powers that prevent executive overreach. Sure, this change might lead to more regulatory lawsuits, and we can address that by hiring more judges or drafting clearer laws. I'd prefer judges interpret laws with the advice of regulatory agency experts, even if it results in the same decisions. The potential increase in government size is a small price to pay for upholding constitutional principles.

In my opinion, the Chevron ruling is not only fundamentally unconstitutional, it is poison to this nation, and this recent decision rightly restores the balance of power.

View on HN

The Chevron Doctrine carried with it a two-step process for judges assessing vagaries in laws:

1. Is it vague about legal matters? For example, does the law seem to allow government agents to search somebody's house without good cause or notice? Then the judge, being an expert in law, should make the call.

2. If not 1, then it seems to be a subject matter vagary. For example (pulling from the dissent), is the Gray Squirrel population in the Pacific Northwest distinct enough from other Gray Squirrel populations in the US to qualify for protection? Should this be determined by geography, genetics, ecosystem similarity? How could we expect a judge to wisely rule on this unless they also have an advanced degree in biology and ecology?

Chevron recognized that matters of law should be decided by judges, but also accepts that we don't have idealized judges who always have perfect understanding. I expect we'll soon see glaring examples of imperfect (a.k.a., human) judges soon.

In US law to establish standing, you have to demonstrate injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability based on the Article III limit requiring courts to address "cases" and "controversies."

This makes us great at redressing harm, and terrible at preventing harm. A lot of modern technology is such an effective force multiplier that the process of establishing standing and having a hearing before a preliminary injunction can be catastrophic, far beyond what was possible when the Constitution was drafted.

Under Chevron, judges deferred to reasonable regulatory interpretations. Now it's a slower, more adversarial process.

I hope you're right and the answer is to just grow the government and judiciary.

> the judiciary's constitutional role in interpreting laws

Their constitutional role is quite a lot more limited than their de facto role.

Congress may ultimately decide to assert their dominance, which sounds good, except that Congress is already fully captured by special interests anyway.

The issue here is that instead of hiring more judges there will just be a backlog of court cases. Just look at the asylum situation. Congress is utterly incapable of passing laws which is why executive power has grown.

This isn't about executive overreach. Congress delegated the power, the executive branch oversees implementation the courts step in but only if it's clear the executive branch departments have misinterpreted the law.

This ruling is the thing that is the poison to our nation. It is born not only of extreme conservativism but also nihlism that doesn't care how many things are wrecked if there's less regulation for big businesses. It is extremely cynical ruling that has little relationship to the constitution. Congress has been broken at least since the 90s(thanks Gingrich) and the Chevron defense has helped keep the country working

you don't 'hire more judges.' A political party appoints them. This is simply a way to enshrine right wing rule into the interpretation and application of laws

Reply on news.ycombinator.com