Chevron is a big, big deal: If you believe in limited government, then you’re going to love this Supreme Court decision

If you believe in limited government, or fear that government bureaucrats rule every decision, then you’re going to love the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council.

Conversely, some prefer not making decisions, or thinks a government employee is somehow better, smarter, less greedy. Those people will hate this decision.

Regardless, elimination of the Chevron doctrine is momentous.

A bit of historical background shines light on this watershed occasion. When our nation was founded, its leaders and citizens had just rebelled against the most powerful and tyrannical government at that time: the British monarchy, the king.

The founders were well versed in the Old and New Testaments, various religious and philosophical sects, and ancient Greek philosophy. Their desire was to create a law of the land that limited the inevitable growth and power of any government entity and thereby prevent another dictatorship. They formed a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

The difference is compelling: a republic is rule by the people, guided by the Rule of Law, the Constitution. And the Constitution’s sole aim is to limit the power of our government, including the majority. That infers, and precludes, the rule of a majority over a minority (democracy). Shocking? What do we get when two wolves and a sheep decide what’s for dinner? A democracy. For an example of the dominance of the majority over the minority, just look at the tax code: the top 1% of wage earners pay 45% of all taxes.

In 1984, the Chevron doctrine (deferral) gave powers, that were supposed to reside with Judiciary and the Legislative Branch, to mere government bureaucrats and regulators across all administrative functions. Chevron was the culmination of a century-long effort to increase the power of one person, the president, through bureaucratic (administrative) control.

In 2024, we see that dictatorship ending. Thanks to SCOTUS, particularly Justice Gorsuch. And, giving him his due, thanks to President Trump for nominating his three justices.

Removal of the Chevron doctrine is just the opening salvo of a difficult process that must be undertaken by the next president and Congress. It means several things. First, politicians cannot be elected on the promise of finding a government-based solution to every problem. Politicians in the future must be elected on the promise to reduce rules, regulations, and excess laws on the books. This is representative government.

This is the kind of writing seen too frequently on American Thinker - slipshod analysis.

Chevron is not dead, it - deffering to choices of the administrative state in matters of their regulations - is modified, not eliminated.

The writer did correctily note when the Chevron decision was made, which is 1984. That was during the Reagan administration. His administration backed Chevron in the case. What was happening was the “Liberal” judges were tryning to block regulatory changes Reagan was making, in matters like EPA regulations and others. The Chevron decision stopped that judicial meddling against Reagan regulatory changes.

What dose the recent ruling do. It does not end everything in which the right or wrong of something is left to the deference of the regulators.

It does stop one use of that deference. It stops the administrative state from single handedly interpreting any ambiguity in the laws to suit itself. The administrative state cannot fill in the blanks on its own where the detail in the law is not transparent. In other words, the administrative state cannot “fix” for itself what Congress left unclear. If a law regarding regulations concerns some ambiguity, the courts can step in and make that decision, the admintrative state cannot do it alone. And just as well if the Courts are not sure either, it will take Congress to amend the law to remove the ambiguty.

But in matters of facts and the regulators opinion of what the facts mean conerning regulations, provding that does not involve any ambiguity in the law, deference to the administrative state’s opinion will remain and will not be challenged by the courts - essentially.

I’m hoping that one of the many ramifications of this decision will be that Congress will no longer be able to get away with passing vague legislation that only provides faint outlines of what the legislation will actually do, leaving it up to agency bureaucrats to determine the critical details AFTER passage. This is a game they’ve played (especially the dems) for decades. It’s allowed bill sponsors to hide the real intent of proposed legislation from legislators and the public, and is the foundation behind Pelosi’s “you have to pass it to find out what’s in it” scam. Now, members of Congress will have to determine the important details themselves and (gasp) actually go on the record voting for or against them.

Until Washington is cleaned up “conservative” SCOTUS rulings will largely be ignored.

The ruling that college admissions can’t be race-based has been ignored. The ruling that Biden does not have the authority to forgive student loans has been blatantly and publicly ignored. Now Chevron is supposed to be a big deal? I don’t believe it. The administrative state will simply ignore it.

We need to be careful not to fool ourselves into thinking that America is somehow on the way back. Because currently it is not. Right now our country is in real trouble and headed to third world commie status. Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that drastic measures won’t be necessary.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.