Posted on 06/29/2024 10:39:56 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the 40-year-old Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, won’t affect Americans’ lives in as stark and immediate a way as the 2022 decision overruling Roe v. Wade.
But like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Loper Bright has the potential to fundamentally transform major aspects of the health, safety and well-being of most Americans. That’s especially true when it is viewed alongside some of the other major cases about agency power the court has handed down in recent terms — and indeed in recent days — that have stripped agencies of power and shifted that power directly to federal courts.
Just this week, the court eliminated a key mechanism used by the Securities and Exchange Commission to enforce securities laws and enjoined an important Environmental Protection Agency emissions standard based on, in the words of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in dissent, an “underdeveloped theory that is unlikely to succeed on the merits.”
Out of the 1984 Chevron decision came the doctrine of Chevron deference. In essence, Chevron deference allowed agencies to use their expertise to determine how to carry out laws passed by Congress — laws intended to keep our air and water clean, our drugs safe and effective, and our securities markets protected from fraud and deception.
The Supreme Court has now decreed that it, rather than agencies staffed by individuals with deep subject matter expertise and answerable to presidential appointees, will be the final arbiter of the meaning of every statute passed by Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It removed power from the DC Swamp and returned it to The People.
They will NOT give up the power they have had easily.
My own reading of the Constitution is that it plainly and simply states that Congress shall make laws, not nameless and faceless unelected bureaucrats. And it remained that way for a couple hundred years.
It’s a judicial grab for power saying that the legislature has the power not the faceless bureaucrats.
We will have to pry it from their cold, dead hands.
no such thing as consolidating power in the SC.
This does not feel like a conservative court at all.
“The Supreme Court has now decreed that it, rather than agencies staffed by individuals with deep subject matter expertise and answerable to presidential appointees, will be the final arbiter of the meaning of every statute passed by Congress.”
Well, yeah. It’s been awhile since my 9th grade Civics class, but as I remember, that’s -exactly- the way it’s supposed to work.
This opinion piece defines “hubris”.
“The Supreme Court has now decreed that it, rather than agencies staffed by individuals with deep subject matter expertise and answerable to presidential appointees, will be the final arbiter of the meaning of every statute passed by Congress.”
completely illogical conclusion.
“The court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the 40-year-old Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, won’t affect Americans’ lives in as stark and immediate a way as the 2022 decision overruling Roe v. Wade.”
I think that I’ve read enough.
For starters, I doubt that states representing more than 30% of the population even toughened abortion laws since Roe v. Wade was ‘overruled’ (silly me, I thought ‘overturned’ was the correct term here).
Other than making it harder for guys to force their knocked-up girls to get abortions, another 50% of the population are unaffected, so now only 15% affected (women in those states).
Of the 15% affected, some portion live within an easy drive to a Blue State (or maybe Canada, not sure), so maybe 12% affected.
Of the 12% affected, probably half are too old or too young to even get knocked up, so 6% affected
Of the 6% affected, probably half of them are either trying to get knocked up, or are ok with getting knocked up (generally the ones with ‘partnars’, although some singles also), so 3%.
As to the Chevron decision, literally EVERYONE I can think of is affected. For the Homeless, for example, they’ll now likely be able to get tents made out of materials that hold up better in urban environments, for the rest of the country, they might be able to buy washing machines that actually work.
It’s not even close.
There, fixed it.
All I can write is that you would think the early deaths of so many due to the overturning of Chevron would be a positive for the NYT. After all getting so many peasants out of the way is a big boon for saving Mother Gaia from the climate crisis.
The constitution says only congress can write laws and that also means courts can’t write laws either. That means plyler v doe must be voided. That’s the court-written law from 1982 that ordered the states to give free k-12 to illegals. That has cost america trillions of dollars.
The administration will ignore the Supreme court as they have done with the tuition loan forgiveness.
What is this “expertise” the left sees in these agencies?
They are staffed with career gov’t employees that have no real-world experience. How do they even have “expertise”?
We know how....the bureaucracy coordinates with activist groups and enacts their bidding.
This is not “expertise”....but this is why the left loved it.
. “In essence, Chevron deference allowed agencies to use their expertise to determine how to carry out laws passed by Congress”
See, that is a major misunderstanding of how rule making authority (drafting regulations in order to implement and enforce legislation) is supposed to work. It is not about “expertise in determining how to carry out laws..”. It is about carrying out the legislative intent of the statute/law. The expertise comes into play when setting standards for regulation and enforcement (what is to be regulated and how it is to be enforced is the job of Congress) which are supposed to be based on objective findings of fact.
Implementing laws should never be a matter of subjective “expertise” but of objective facts. Arriving at those facts does require true expertise not political posturing.
An example would be Congress passes a law requiring warning labels about choking hazards of small toys or parts. They write that the law applies to children under the age of six and does not require an actual ban of the sales of those toys.
The agency having jurisdiction would then use finding of fact to determine at what point does a toy/ part become a choking hazard for children under the age of six. That determination made the agency then decides how (short of an outright ban) to protect/warn consumers against the hazard. Just a warning label? Special childproof packaging? Making those part a different color? Including a diagram of first aid for choking? All are probable. All must address the cost to the consumer for any decision by the agency.
Notice what the agency shall not do. Decide to regulate sale of other items that are not toy or toy parts because they too present a choking hazard. Decide to raise the limit to children under ten years of age. Decide that a certain toy shall be banned based on the law without any further consultation with Congress (absent a true emergency).
To put it simply, Who is in charge of carrying out the law and how to carry out the law is determined by the law itself. That is how laws work.
"Fortified" your comment a little.
That’s their point, yes. But it’s the specific duty of the courts to interpret laws as written, not some guy wearing khakis in a cubicle. Congress should be clear and specific in the first place — it’s not that hard to do.
Is there a way to get around the paywall on this rag?
” But it’s the specific duty of the courts to interpret laws as written,”
The real answer is for congress to not write ambiguous laws that need interpretation.
Where do we draw the line between interpreting a law and rewriting it.?
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.