[know.your.why]

Seems to me that “Chevron Deference” is legalized abuse of power.

[artichokegrower]

What could go wrong:

Not allowing transgender surfers would violate Coastal Act, Huntington Beach contest organizer learns

The California Coastal Commission has drawn a line in the sand: Allow transgender surfers to compete, or you’ll be in violation of the Coastal Act.

A two-day surf contest happening this weekend in Huntington Beach found itself at the center of a hotly debated topic: Whether trans athletes should be allowed to compete in the gender division they identify with or the gender they were born as – a question many sports organizers are facing as equality and fairness are argued among both sides.

[GOPJ]

Does this mean we can have dishwashers that use enough water to get the dishes clean in less than three hours?

[GOPJ]

Does this mean we can have dishwashers that use enough water to get the dishes clean in less than three hours?

[nwrep]

Thank you.

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[logi_cal869]

That’s very helpful, considering that I haven’t had any time to read up on it. But I don’t interpret it as the good news some are portraying.

So, succinctly, SCOTUS reversed opinion SCOTUS made in 1984.

The logical question:

What prevents a liberal SCOTUS in the future from doing the same? As with the so-called abortion matter?

And I’m not even going to get into the effects of 3 years of the virus and the jabs...

I’m of growing opinion that our system is irreparably broken, just as they intended.

We shall see what November brings.

[leaning conservative]

Many thanks.

[bakeneko]

Luke, I felt a great disturbance in the GOV, as if a million bureaucrats cried out in terror, and then were suddenly fired because their jobs didn’t exist anymore.

[siamesecats]

Thank you!

[airborne]

Thank you!

It helps me with any argument I might make to any liberal

Clear and concise.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

The Chevron Deference in a contemporary setting:

“Can you tell me, what is a ‘woman’?”
KJB: “I’m not a biologist.”

[telescope115]

I didn’t even know about the Chevron Deference until this past Friday, but I AM aware of the effect it’s had on this country.

I said this in a post on Friday: I was a subscriber to Consumer Reports emails where they would announce recalls and give other information, such as reviews. They have an online petition protesting the overturning of Chevron and requested I sign it. I immediately unsubscribed from their emails. Screw them.

[Armando Guerra]

What the Chevron demise shows is that we have lost the ability to interpret "reasonable." Under the Chevron doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. The courts instead interpreted it to mean that any decision by the agency could be considered reasonable. The inability to determine what is reasonable by the courts has had a significant deterioration of legal proceedings. Under common law, the reasonable man doctrine determined the duty of care owed. The erosion of the doctrine can be seen in the ridiculous warning labels required because the reasonable man is now a complete idiot who must be told not to lick a car battery. The death of the Chevron doctrine can be directly attributed to the death of reasonableness in modern society.

[zeugma]

Dumping Chevron deference is a HUGE win against the administrative state.

I’d strongly recommend that folks who are interested read the decision itself. It is actually written in English. It helps if you have a little experience reading legalese, but even someone who doesn’t know what all the terms mean should be able to figure it out largely from context

It can be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

All opinions for this term are at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/23

[Beowulf]

succinct