We will soon see what a huge and harmful deal the recent Chevron ruling is. The Supreme Court needs to be gutted.
The consequences of reversing Chevron definitely seem dire to me but the court's majority opinion of why they did is also pretty reasonable.
Congress does not simply write "This bill establishes the Department of Slinky Tossing" and lets the Executive define, without any restriction, what this agency should do.
Congress would at least define this agency as responsible for launching Slinkies in a manner that is at least partially airborne for some of it's trajectory.
Now here's where things get tricky, Congress must write in immutable words that must withstand decades of scrutiny on their definition. Let's say "airborne" was used because they did not want this agency merely cradling Slinkies into the ocean, nor did Congress want the Slinkies to remain in boxes.
So in a few years of tossing Slinkies around on earth, this "Department of Slinky Tossing" partners with NASA to throw Slinkies around on Mars.
A new opportunity arises for the true linguo-contrarian looking for a gladitorial match entrenched in establishing meaning: Congress used the term "airborne". Airborne requires an object being in air. But how does one define "air"?
Did Congress intend for air to refer to the atmosphere on Earth? The gaseous atmosphere around any planet? And really, what is a planet? Could this definition of "air" be restricted to gaseous mixtures consumable by humans? Who knows!
Now we must defer to a court to decide if the breathability of air impacts the definition of the term "airborne", and if the "Department of Slinky Tossing" is allowed to toss Slinkies on Mars simply because "airborne" has been ambiguously defined in both common usage and law.
Unfortunately, the Department of Slinky Tossing is unable to defend itself by claiming that Congress continued to fund their wiggly experiments, which to the agency, suggests the agency was still within permissible bounds.
Congress' appropriations process ensures there is an opportunity every year to refuse the "Department of Slinky Tossing"'s space aspirations if inter-planetary slinky tossing is a leap too far. The Court seems to disapprove of the notion that the appropriations process is Congress allowing an agency to continue to operate as it's been running.
Ultimately, I think this ruling simply cements that language-pedants ought to spend their energy finding a fufilling hobby.
A base assumption that every law comes with an implied "lets the Executive define, without any restriction, what this agency should do" is certainly not something I'd want the country to just assume (and not even something I'm sure I want any law to specify outright either...)
You badly misunderstand what Chevron deference was about and how it worked. This is not at all how it worked.
If you meant something else then all the same you've left no other clues to interpret what your assertion is disagreeing with or why so.
Where do you get this bullshit? "Chevron" was not a zombie precedent, it was very much the defining factor of the US administrative state.
It was NOT a zombie doctrine. It had actively been used, all the way to the recent decision.
The intent of overturning Chevron was to do away with regulations, and it's likely to work. Congress could spend a month working out the exact right policies and chemicals and requirements for PFAS, and there would still be some loophole / discovery that a chemical is slightly different than exactly what was legislated. And in the meantime, the
This is literally like saying the Alphabet board of directors should have to write every product requirement for every product in every company in Alphabet's portfolio. Delegation is the only way large organizations can work effectively, and outlawing it in government is expressly intended to make government impossible.
Nothing stops Congress from writing a law which unambiguously grants an agency broad authority to regulate (for instance) chemicals and pollutants.
that is exactly the problem; those decisions should be made by regulatory agencies, who are experts in science, not on courts, who are experts in the law.
It's a horrible ruling that makes these types of decisions even more political than they already were.
[1] https://www.axios.com/2023/12/19/118-congress-bills-least-un...
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polar...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/clim...
[4] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/site...
[5] https://www.ft.com/content/c361e372-769e-45cd-a063-f5c0a7767... | https://archive.today/lQoLa
Do you not see a potential problem with this approach?
Congress is not deadlocked. What you mean is, you support a policy which is not popular enough to pass Congress, and you feel strongly enough about the need for this policy that you think it should bypass the American democratic system and be enacted through extra-legal means if necessary.
Tell me, which party is threatening democracy again?
Congress never loses the reigns here. This is the legislative will, as they are created and financially sustained by acts of legislature, and their leadership approval and dismissal process is determined by legislature. These agencies are "executive" in a very limited way. They are moreso extensions of Congressional power with very limited execute oversight.
What I'm saying is it's complicated, and it seems we are paying the price for letting our government be utterly destroyed in its effectiveness.
If the options are hope or action, and action might need to be fixed down the road, I ain't pickin' hope. This is a reasonable risk to accept based on the situation and options available, we are at an impasse.
> What I'm saying is it's complicated, and it seems we are paying the price for letting our government be utterly destroyed in its effectiveness.
Agreed, but the only path forward is to try to fix it, not bikeshed about how sad it is we got here. Talk to Newt about that.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gi...
https://history.princeton.edu/about/publications/burning-dow...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-inside-story-of-how-newt-g...
I guess the Constitution really is a suicide pact after all.
You dont seem to understand the role of the judiciary. Even if the removal of Chevron deference has the most destructive effect of any ruling of all time, that in no way suggests the law was interpreted incorrectly which is the actual purpose of the court. Suggesting the court should be gutted because of harmful effects just shows you don’t want a judiciary at all.
I agree with the dissenters in the ruling under discussion. The ruling was badly wrong and it’s clear that the Court is going to expand on this rulimg and it’s going to have dire consequences. Removal of justices is warranted.
The biggest factor in limiting the Supreme Court's power is writing laws that supersede the rulings on existing laws. If we just rest on ever increasing current interpretations of past laws to drive current policy then we are going to give an ever increasing amount of power to the judicial branch.
Loper Bright says that regulators can’t change rules on a whim as they go along, and ignore/exceed congressional authority. What part of that do you have a problem with?
I suppose they probably way overestimate the odds that we won't have a brand new executive branch with wildly different priorities and definition of reality in 5 months.