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 ...
The NYT has no problem when SCOTUS increases the power of the central government.
Yep. Look at the latest SC ruling on firearms. Liberal states continue to put up roadblocks to firearms ownership. Practically every onerous, arbitrary, unconstitutional bureaucratic rule will have to be challenged in court.
This, this, this!!!!!
The exact opposite of “imperial”.
Here is Roberts's opinion on this issue:
The Framers appreciated that the laws judges would necessarily apply in resolving those disputes would not always be clear. Cognizant of the limits of human language and foresight, they anticipated that “[a]ll new laws, though penned with the greatest technical skill, and passed on the fullest and most mature deliberation,” would be “more or less obscure and equivocal, until their meaning” was settled “by a series of particular discussions and adjudications.” The Federalist No. 37, p. 236 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (J. Madison).
Thomas should’ve brought up the fact that government agencies are drowning in affirmative action, hires, instead of hiring the best and the brightest for their technical expertise. That might’ve been true a generation ago, but that is certainly no longer true today. Thomas missed a golden opportunity to highlight this fact in his, concurring opinion on the Chevron case.
the left LOVED the supreme court when the court was making up crap out of thin air and ruling for them.
But just like with gerrymandering they suddenly hate it when things turn against them.
exactly! how DARE the supreme court say laws need to be passed by congress!
/s
“WAAAAAAAA. Some bureaucratic tyrant lost some power to rule over Americans. Communities of color, BIPOC, women, an LGBTQWTF hardest hit.”
I always got a kick out of the ATF website that says, “Myth: The ATF does not write gun laws”
Completely omitting the arbitrarily decide what is legal and illegal without any concern from congress..
An often-overooked but absolutely awful decision.
“They” are whining about SCrOTUS so something good and just must have happened.
Oh goody! if the NY Slimes is upset about it then it must be a positive development!
Totalitarian freaks at the NYT upset that unelected bureaucrats have no law-making powers.
Cry harder, fascist pigs.
Congress has been allowed to write ambiguous laws on purpose so they don’t have to take the political heat from the laws they wrote. The “system” gets the blame. Well no more now no more interpretation by unelected bureaucrats the courts can and should strike down an ambiguous law and make Congress pass what they mean in English with full responsibility as it should be on the representatives who answer ultimately to the voters before the fraud went rampant and voting mattered. Suck it bureaucrats you are the problem.
To be honest they didn't overturn it they rewrote it, abortion is still legal if a state says it is. Wasn't legal before Roe.
Judge in Kansas City used his robe to raise taxes and got away with 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.