Posted on 06/29/2024 10:27:58 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
“defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations “
Yeah the leftist punks in the agencies are “reasonable”. Like banning gas stoves ,ice landscaping and farm equipment.
First mortal blow to the deep state in ages.
For far too long, Congress has been content to pass laws totally without regard to how they ultimately would be enforced. Perhaps the Congress will, in the future, actually debate the full ramifications of a law before passing it. If they do not do so (and I doubt they will), the interpretations of regulations will be determined by whatever court litigants are able to shop their cases to!
“In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan said the ruling amounted to a judicial power grab.”
LOL. The judiciary “grabbed” the power assigned to the judiciary by the constitution — to interpret the law.
I would be better viewed as the Supreme Court saying the lower courts can no longer be lazy. They actually have to interpret the law.
What will happen though is the same thing as has happened on the second amendment. There will be a wholesale insurrection by lower courts against the Supreme Court on this one.
The lower courts filled with Obama and Biden Judges will just ignore the Supreme Court and force the Supreme Court to keep reversing case after case. And the Supreme Court does not have the time to do that.
The crux of the problem the justices met was ambiguity in some laws that passed law making power to the administrative state.
Before Chevron (1984) that legal ambiguity in the laws was settled in the courts. After Chevron that ambiguity was left to the administrative state agencies to decide about for themselves. After the recent ruling Chevron has been trimmed but not totally eliminated.
Courts can now question whether an agency is making its own interpretaion of a regulation, which the current ruling now disallows, but agencies are left to their own opinion of the facts the regulation is concerned with, as long as it is not also their own interpretation of some legal ambiguity in the law.
The entire framework of the administrative state invokes a progressive idea - “rule by the experts - that is irrational and illogical. It pretends that “official experts” have been miraculously handed powers of descernment so superior to any person or person, that there can be no expert opinion that disagrees with them - merely because they are the “official” opinion. We saw greatly during Covid the whole fallacy of that concept.
So why do the “progressives” love the current framework of the administrative state? Because they really do not trust real democracy - no guarantee of the results. The adoption of the administrative state was to intentionally avoid actual and specific Congressional decision making on specific items of “regulation”, and instead remove Congress from most of the power in that and let executive fiat by the apoointed “experts” make more and more and more and more of the decisions.
The progresive love of the adminstrative state dovetails neatly with the socialist impulse, which seeks to leave nothing to the Liberty of the people and all actions and behaviors dictated by the behemoth that the administrative state already is and will in time grow even more to be.
<>How many laws that Congress does Pass are written ambiguously on purpose?<>
Agree.
During the weeks leading to a vote on Obamacare I recall someone did a word search and found “as the Secretary shall direct” appeared thousands of times. Purposeful ambiguity on the part of Congress.
However, I don’t believe federal courts have constitutional authority to insert their opinions into ambiguous laws.
Send the laws back to congress for clarification.
At least pretend we have a Constitutional republic.
Correction to my previous post.
I said
“Courts can now question whether an agency is making its own interpretaion of a regulation”,
but I meant to say - Courts can now question whether an agency is making its own interpretaion of a law (the laws by which they have been given their authority).
>> judicial hubris
lol, and judicial hyperbole, and judicial pretense, and quite possibly judicial pride especially during the month of June
>> The progresive love of the adminstrative state
It’s how the Progressives inflict their unconstitutional control over the plebeians.
Curious how this could put a chill on the EV mandates.
“Elena Kagan said the ruling amounted to a judicial power grab. “
What a stupid woman. Giving lawmaking power to elected lawmakers is not a “judicial power grab.” Those three Marxists have a neck and neck race to be the most insulting and stupid on the court.
All the centralized feral government “agencies” are unconstitutional and should be dismantled immediately and the overpaid affirmative action employees forced to find real jobs.
NYT sounds a lot like the non-biologist justice whining about the First Amendment’s “hamstringing government efforts.” Exactly, lady, that’s what it’s for!
EPA, OSHA, FDA, ATF (ESPECIALLY ATF) have all vastly over-stepped their authority through the use of this doctrine. EVERY edict and rule they implemented under aegis of it should be rescinded.
Kagan is wrong again. This does not put power in the court, it takes it away from the ADMINISTRATION and makes congress do their job representing US instead of giving that power away to the administration and their out of control unaccountable bureaucrats. Perhaps congress will think more, do less and be forced to be responsible. Instead of 700,000 pages of federal register random entries made up by agencies led by political appointees that become law the people may have more say other than mere comment on regulations that are implemented no matter the protest. I’m still dreaming.
If nyt is squaling it must be good.
Ambiguity will not or should not default to the agency deciding what they decide what is best for us. Instead the decision will be infected or innoculated by sunlight and more often nothing will change without circling back to congress for actual law making. That is what is supposed to happen
“The main thing that conservative commentators are saying is that it makes it easier to sue the IRS/BATF/EPA”
It also makes it easier for elected constitutional sheriffs to stop enforcement of illegal federal diktats.
I hope this ruling is as destructive of government gone rogue as it should be. I hope this could be as much fun to witness as I think it could be. 😊😊
“Has anyone seen an analysis of how this might affect the BATF? Or the IRS?”
Or the Census Bureau, those idiots keep sending us questionnaires asking if we smoke in our house or have guns, it’s none of their damned business.
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.