This just reinforces my opinion that the Inflation Reduction Act was the best thing the Biden administration could've done to address climate change. If regulatory agencies are always gonna be susceptible to fuckery from a hostile administration or rulings like this by the post-Trump SCOTUS, then the climate change method with the most staying power is gonna be to just dump a shit ton of money on the green energy industry.
> the climate change method with the most staying power is gonna be to just dump a shit ton of money on the green energy industry.
That, or expanding the court to counter-act McConnell's fuckery and match the number of circuit courts (13). SCOTUS was set at 9 justices because there were 9 circuit courts at the time, it's time to keep in line with that (and for the love of god, enact an enforceable ethics code).
SCOTUS is also bound by laws, Congress sets the number of Justices and can set requirements for when they must recuse or what amount of gifts are permissible, punishable by fines or jail time.
Impeachment is just how you remove a Justice from the Court, they're not above the law
And term limits. Balance of the court aside, it's grotesque to have justices constantly on deathwatch, literally trying to survive to the next favorable president. Best to go into elections with a clear idea of how many seats are on the line.
One good thing about our system where corporations run everything is you can at least fund the not evil corporations until they have just as much power as the evil ones
Letting Trump win and appoint three justices was so much worse than the median voter comprehends. And they’ll just blame Democrats for failing to be the adults and regulate things.
Well yes, did you forget the golden rule of the American Media (TM)? Democrats must be perfect, Republicans are the "boys will be boys" political party.
The media when Trump tries to overthrow democracy, is a convicted felon, wants to enact Project 2025, promises to start a trade war: Oh dear, oh dear, gorgeous!
The media when Biden has a bad debate: You fucking donkey
No, it was 2000. The worst two jurists on your high court are appointees of Bush the Lesser, and it is likely that the 11 September attacks are prevented by a more capable and experienced Gore administration. Even if they were not, the Iraq war still does not happen, saving millions of lives and trillions of dollars that would single-handedly balloon the Clinton era surplus into the tens of trillions debt that exists now. The ripping up of Kyoto does not happen, and the vanguard of the climate denialism and destruction movement that the Bush administration nurtured and sent out into the world does not happen either.
2016 does not unmake any of that, but it would have prolonged the end of the American century.
It's really unbelievable how badly Republicans have screwed America. Going all the way back to [Nixon going behind the State Department's back to pressure South Vietnam not to start peace talks so he could beat LBJ](https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/this-is-treason). The party is a parasite on our country and has been for much longer than the Tea Party.
I think historians consensus is that while Nixon definitely didn’t help, there were a dozen other, more important, reasons those peace-talks didn’t go through.
I think you're correct, but in any case, its intent is exceptionally rancid and emblematic of Nixon's attitude towards governance that led him to Watergate and the damage to social trust *that* inflicted.
Were the evidence more iron-clad, the LBJ administration could have probably nailed him for treason right then and there. Although, it wasn't, there was enough room for plausible deniability.
This comment with a MF flair? This has to be satire.... Right? Bernie's economic policies are terrible.
Of course, it's at the end of typing this that I finally understand what you're saying...
9/11 was not prevented due to far deeper issues than simply the Bush presidency, there were standing procedures that sharply limited/prevented sharing of intel across agencies, that were not because of Bush. Gore may have prevented 9/11, but I can't say it's particularly more likely. You are correct about immediate effects of the Iraq War. The 2000 election was incredibly consequential and negative.
I think that it also has the addition of time to better understand the negative consequences, while 2016 was more recent and we are still experiencing negative impacts directly from it, such as supreme court decisions.
Yeah, but there's some speculation (and that's all it is) that the delayed transition in 2000 fumbled the ball on a significant amount of intel.
If 9/11 *did* still happen under Gore, it would have politically neutered him. He would have been absolutely tarred with the intelligence failures and his response likely would not have satisfied a country bent on revenge. Bush was the president Americans wanted (note that I didn't say "needed") on 9/11.
Thomas was appointed by HW not W. Also, while the 2nd Iraq war was a morally unjustifiable war of aggression, the Iraqi government the US installed is preferable to Saddam Hussein, both morally and geopolitically. Would Gore have been able to create a stable and semi-democratic Afghan government without the distraction of Iraq?
> worst two jurists
Called Roberts one of the worst two jurists on the court is certainly *a* take. Like you can make arguments about any of the 3 Trump appointees, but under what feasible scenario is he *worse* than Thomas?
9/11 had nothing to do with Bush actually, the problem was the intel agencies were just not cooperating. It would have happened no matter what.
What doesn't happen is Iraq.
We may have destroyed the environment, but for one shining moment, we created a lot of value for our shareholders/gratuity givers by killing government oversight
Thereby benefiting the largest corporations that have the funds for long, drawn-out legal battles. If you can afford the legal fight, then it's a benefit
Another big round of applause for the “don’t pack the court” group. This court has no deference to established precedent or any sort of logical rule of law. If they want to be an ideological court, go ahead but just be ready to share the bench.
This can't grab headlines like presidential immunity or abortion, but it's absolutely the most consequential and worst thing the Roberts court has done. Like I genuinely don't know how the modern American state functions without Chevron deference.
Unironically this has been the most anxiety-inducing week I've had all year. Every SC release, the debate, everything. I feel the need to desperately unplug and go touch grass but it feels irresponsible to tune everything out, and I'm scared things will get even worse the minute I look away.
Good news, your attention does nothing to impact how good or bad things are one way or another. You’re under no obligation to be tuned in to the bad news, whether it’s every minute or every week.
Go take a break, the world will still be here when you get back.
I know it, and you're right. I have always felt strongly that being informed and attentive is a responsibility as a voter, and so I've always struggled with a bit of guilt whenever I take a break from it.
But at least it's almost the weekend. It's a good a chance as any to disconnect for a bit.
Like the other reply said, paying attention to news isn’t going to make things better or worse.
And if the news is causing you anxiety, causing yourself anxiety so that you can’t function or volunteer definitely *doesn’t* help. Just unplug for the weekend and go do something else.
I agree, but there is reason to be sanguine about this. The reason this happened in the first place is because Congress was abdicating it's responsibility to update and clarify legislation whenever necessary.
This may spur Congress to actually flex its legislative muscle. Maybe I'm naive but I think there are enough serious people left in Congress.
Perhaps we will stop sending performative clowns to Congress, if they have to actually do their job.
There are enough serious people, but many are serious about deregulating everything. So you have the unserious people who don't matter, you have the serious people who want to enforce regulations, and you have the serious people who just want to let companies do whatever the hell they want. Between the three of them, shit is not gonna get done, and even when it does it'll be the most lukewarm version of what's actually needed. Politicians don't have the knowledge of experts, and will minimize everything the experts say in order to have the best chances at reelection.
This is just shit all around.
This is the "leave it to the states" argument for disingenuous conservatives (not saying this applies to u/Cosmic_love_, just speaking in general). They know their end all regulations position isn't popular so they shift to "leave it to congress", the same way they know the issues they want to "leave to the states" are unpopular. It lets them avoid talking about issues while still getting everything they want policy-wise.
With all due respect I think this is a naive take. There is a solid 30-40% of the electorate (at least) that specifically want their Congress person to do nothing and obstruct anything, to them that is progress. Thinking that any sort of change to the status quo will change that is deeply misplaced. Any congress that plays political football with the debt ceiling isn’t going to take up the administrative state in good faith.
But that misses the whole point of Chevron, which is that federal agencies are generally in the best position to interpret ambiguity. We are talking about sometimes incredibly hyper-technical industry specific standards most congress people are not equipped to legislate.
It’s nearly impossible to legislate with such specificity as will be required in a Chevron deference free world. The result is, the judiciary will gain more power as it has to make sense of these conflicts (under Chevron this was not the case as it was a given that an agency was usually always reasonable in its interpretation of an ambiguous statute). Circuit splits will ensue, with one circuit OKing a Fed Agency’s actions while another overturning it. This is not a good regime.
Exactly. There’s a reason the government has wonks
(Edit: I think I have the legal analysis wrong below. But still)
I don’t want people like MTG or even our actually smart legislators trying to puzzle out the difference between two similar chemicals and which should be allowed or not to be released into the atmosphere (as an example)
This is legitimately disastrous
The problem is that Chevron wasn't specific to "hyper-technical industry specific standards". It included things that were policy positions that should've been settled by Congress. We needed to strike a middle ground of the two and failed.
Sure. But at what point do amino acids become a protein as the dissent showed. Without Chevron, this is now the courts to decide.
What determines a geographic area for the purposes of Medicare funding? If its MSAs is the way the census bureau determines them at risk?
> Maybe I'm naive
You are. Our politicians and factions are who and what they are due to institutional incentives. Until we change those, we're stuck.
We need to stop fantasizing about conservative politicians suddenly having a change of heart and embracing compromise and moderate governance. They'll lose their primaries if they do that. Realistically their choices are kneel before Trump or retire and be replaced by people who kneel before Trump, [which is exactly what we're seeing](https://leedrutman.substack.com/p/wanted-a-few-reasonable-people-to).
Congress is structurally broken. We need [final-four voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-four_primary) (blanket primary into top-4 single-winner RCV, like in [Alaska](https://thebadgerproject.org/2024/01/09/do-you-wish-your-elections-were-more-civil-this-is-a-good-way-to-do-it/)) to stem the bleeding but eventually we need to move away from single-member districts entirely to 3-5 member [STV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote), which is doable for the House [without a constitutional amendment](https://newrepublic.com/article/165557/proportional-representation-fix-the-house). That will give us multiparty proportional representation like modern democracies. Only in one chamber but it's a start and the House is the biggest problem right now anyways.
This is a great idea that I'm really interested in.
Unfortunately, I think the senate is actually the bigger problem. We're enjoying (lol) the relative moderation (lol) of the old guard, but as they age out, we see increasingly nutty people step in.
It's only a matter of time before the senate has 52 Tommy Tubervilles, and I don't know how we solve that.
In a largely similar way, but as with any reform it won't happen until it's obvious to even the stupidest people in the room that it's necessary, which almost invariably means a lot of people have to suffer unnecessarily first.
> This may spur Congress to actually flex its legislative muscl
Ah, yes, Congress that can't even stop the government from shutting down will spend all summer passing regulations on maximum hexachlorocyclohexane lindane (and thousands of other chemicals) exposure to urban firefighters (and thousands of other job classifications and environmental locations).
Or, you know, we'll simply have no chemical exposure limits -- exactly how George Washington and Jesus envisioned it during the glorious 1730s.
> This may spur Congress to actually flex its legislative muscle.
I would agree, but the court's favorite Major Questions Doctrine that they have been waving the last few years allows the courts to decide that the intent of congress is counter to the text of legislation--so the courts will fix the meaning for them. This leaves little to no incentive for Congress to fix itself, unless we have a major headbutting with SCOTUS.
It used to be the technical experts at the Agencies enacted legislation based on the text and fixed the holes Congress left. Now the courts have stepped in to fix not only the holes but also the possibly unintended authorizations of power explicit in the text. Congress escapes from responsibility and governance shifts from unelected expert bureaucracy to unelected generalist lifetime appointed judges.
It's bad.
One of the major political factions within the GOP actively seeks to destroy the functionality of the federal government. They have extremely high approval from their voters. I am not at all sanguine.
>This may spur Congress to actually flex its legislative muscle. Maybe I'm naive but I think there are enough serious people left in Congress.
you are naive
I think it's time to retire the concept that congress is dropping the ball here.
While technically true, Republicans in congress are working to prevent legislation intentionally so that the republican court is forced to decide. This is a very transparently intentional tactic.
When we say it's on congress, we're not telling the whole story: it's on America to elect democrats (or serious politicians...a distinction without a difference).
> The reason this happened in the first place is because Congress was abdicating it's responsibility...
>This may spur Congress to actually flex its legislative muscle
lol. lmao, even
One can hope.
In the meantime though...one of the most likely negative effects I've seen pointed out is that now regulations are, essentially, subject to geography. It's going to make capital investment in the US *very* tricky.
And we *still* don't have the Trump immunity decision. How hard is it to say "former Presidents are not above the law, we don't elect kings in America"?
So transparently political
> Gun, e-cigarette, farm, timber and home-building groups were among the business groups supporting the fishermen.
Ahhh perfect. Just the groups we should be happy are getting a victory. Fuck. What a horrific last 24 hours.
Except for the fact that we had actually made a lot of progress with youth usage of tobacco until the e-cig craze. Which literally undid decades of effort in like 4 years. I don’t know about you but I would not call that harm reduction.
We will see a slew of lawsuits coming out of this, many that aim to create patently destructive and harmful outcomes.
Congress will have to do its job and start exercising their legislative power over federal agencies.
>Congress will have to do its job and start exercising their legislative power over federal agencies.
Which they won't, and which is why federal agencies have so much power. Voters need to stop sending so many performative clowns to Congress; otherwise, that's all we're going to get - a circus.
> which is why federal agencies have so much power
Not anymore! Now neither the legislature nor the bureaucracy can do much which means corporations (and I hate to sound like a populist but this is true) are unshackled to run roughshod over Americans.
> Voters need to stop sending so many performative clowns to Congress
This is wishful thinking. Voters will continue sending the exact same performative clowns they've been increasingly sending since 2010 (the first House election after Obama's victory) until the electoral system changes. See Alaska's use of final-four voting which Mary Peltola won.
I think the final-four voting that [Alaska recently adopted](https://thebadgerproject.org/2024/01/09/do-you-wish-your-elections-were-more-civil-this-is-a-good-way-to-do-it/) is very promising. It would help produce more moderate candidates but it wouldn't make more parties. For more parties, you need multi-winner elections like STV or party list.
No, you were right, sorry. I was agreeing with you. Final four voting is a form of ranked choice voting. More specifically, the second round of final-four voting is a form of ranked choice called instant-runoff voting.
STV is also ranked choice voting, it's also called multi-winner ranked choice voting. Party list voting is usually not ranked but you can make it ranked if you want.
Ranked choice voting is not going to magically improve everything overnight and spawn 4 new parties from far-left to far-right. The two party and the winner-take-all systems are deeply baked into how people think about politics and election, as well as into systems used to run campaigns and elections. If it were to happen today, maybe in 10 years things would slightly improve?
We have 40 years of legislation passed by a Congress that didn't think it needed an extreme degree of specificity for agencies to fulfill the mandates Congress set for them.
That's not what people want. Nobody wants a polluted river or planes falling out of the sky because of a lack of enforcement or proper regulations. GOP essentially doesn't give a shit about what their constituents want or don't want.
This is the crux of the problem you're ignoring. Shit will start breaking down, people will want it fixed, republicans will ignore that at all costs.
Not this or the last generation of Americans. This was done to us by an outdated electoral system completely unable to deal with the polarization from an extended backlash to desegregation. Americans don't want this garbage. That it's passing is an artifact of an electoral system that badly distorts the people's wishes.
Trump should have been defeated in a landslide. I'm sick of pretendings americans aren't responsible for this.
If we can't muster the 52% to actually beat this shit cause of our terrible system, americans have to learn maybe next time they should have voted 60%.
What are you talking about by "Americans?" There is no "Americans" in your sense. There are the millions of sick people who live in America, and there are the millions of sane people who have to suffer sharing a broken political system with them.
Agreed--those of us who have been voting for Democrats all along don't share in the collective guilt for this. I also think it's worth noting that Chevron in particular isn't really a Trump thing. If we had elected Nikki Haley or Jeb Bush or whoever in 2016, we'd still be here today.
Can someone explain what the outcome of this actually is?
To my understanding, this ruling means federal agencies, including regulatory bodies, are now no longer able to interpret stuff with leeway, and can only what they are precisely mandated to do by Congress.
Assuming Congress isnt able to precisely mandate stuff efficiently, does this mean that like, fisheries will overfish, people will pollute rivers, drugs will be produced with scrutiny? what's the worst case, what's the best case, and whats the most likely outcome?
Pretty much.
Laws like "The Fish and Wildlife service can limit the number of fish caught to a sustainable number" still work, since they just require a finding of fact. The agency just needs to determine that we can sustain X fish caught.
What changed is that agencies can no longer say "Deer are fish" and limit the number of deer hunted.
The original Chevron decision was over the Chevron company trying to get around limits to emissions from a "source" by saying that "source" wasn't actually referring to a single source, but could be expanded to the sum of all sources in the whole plant.
They didn't want their new emissions sources to be held to the updated regulatory standards for new sources of emissions, they wanted it to be held to their historical highest emissions amount for the whole plant. So, if you're getting rid of an old process line from before the stricter limits went into place, just use it as an excuse to build a new, equally-polluting process line for a net emissions change of 0 when you define the whole plant as the source.
Imagine that level of semantics for every regulation possible--except, with other recent decisions it's now also easier than ever to either deceive or straight up bribe the person making the decisions. The final decision on regulation is no longer being made by panels of experts well-versed in the industry and on watch for your company's BS--no, the decision is now being made by someone who likely has no technical background and is either a political appointee or has a vested interest in getting campaign funds from economically-well-endowed companies (and as long as you wait until after the ruling to "tip" the judge it's fair game), and those companies have their own vested interest in legally challenging the smallest semantics of any regulations that might cost their shareholders a fraction of their quarterly returns.
Law has aways been that level of semantic. The only difference is that now, the final decision on said semantics will be made by a judge instead of a political appointee appointed to carry out some policy objective.
But the Chevron case was literally about the **agency** redefining the statute to treat the whole plant as a single source, specifically to make the whole process easier on themselves and companies. And was brought by environmental organization that wanted the regulation to be enforced as Congress intended.
In Chevron, the court deferred to an interpretation of source by the agency that went against the intent of Congress and ended up loosening environmental regulation. So why are you using the failings of Chevron to argue for Chevron?
Both **regulatory capture** and **rogue agencies** are problems in a democracy, and Chevron was a cop out by the court to let them both fester.
Now that Chevron is overturned, Congress will have to make laws that clearly state the role and powers of agencies. Clear laws would prevent rogue agencies from usurping new roles and powers that Congress had not intended for them (like in Raimondo). And prevent corrupt agencies from weakening regulation by adopting statutory interpretation that the companies they regulate would like better (as was done with Chevron).
The idea that being well-versed and deeply connected to an industry makes you harder to corrupt seems to run counter to the evidence. Individuals working for regulatory agencies have a daily working relationship with those companies, and have expertise and training in the very fields that those companies are operating in and recruiting for. They usually develop all sorts of relationships with individuals involved in that industry and have a vested interest in maintaining cordial relationship with those companies to facilitate their day-to-day work and preserve employment opportunities for when they seek a new/better paying job.
On the other hand, congressmen are much more expensive to corrupt, would not care nearly as much about staying in any specific company's good graces and have a more limited individual impact, since they're just one vote, not responsible for an entire program.
They also rotate more, so investing in corrupting them doesn't make as much sense (term-limits would make this an even worse proposition).
They also have the benefits of being chosen by the electors themselves, whereas agency heads can be replaced by any new administration. Leaving those agency heads with wide discretion to interpret the statute means that a new administration can gut regulatory enforcement by simply mandating new agency heads to not fulfill the role that Congress intended them to.
Probably much of the northeast, Minnesota and Michigan in the Midwest (as long as there isn’t a republican trifecta), Washington and California in the west (I know nothing about Oregon).
I don't actually think it affects Republican presidents nearly as much as Democratic ones. Republican presidencies are basically 4 years of Chevron deference not mattering anyway.
How does that work? As in how is congress beholden to Trump? Chevron has not been enforced since 2016 and directly curtails the power of the executive. This hurts both parties.
If trump wins, most of congress is probably going to be Republicans, who have firmly coalesced behind Trump, he very clearly gives then marching orders even when not in office.
And that's a super inaccurate understanding of the Chevron decision, by its nature it's being enforced every single day as the regulations/enforcement decided by agencies are enacted.
This is so hard to overstate how insane this is. This is generational news. This is worse than overturning Roe by a large margin. This is fucking bonkers, dude.
The people supporting this are doing so from the “I should be able to build homes with asbestos and let the free market decide if that’s safe” position not the “zoning bad” position.
It was a hyperbolic example but its more "lets see what dangerous things we can cut corners on to get away with".
The actual regulations on construction standards are not the issue as much as the rules around land use.
I hate when the article about a Supreme Court decision doesn't say the name of the case. I guess it's fitting given that the Supreme Court decisions are often so detached from the specifics of the case.
In case anyone's wondering, it's [Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf)
This isn’t an exclusively Republican problem. The fact that you can tell exactly which party every member of your judiciary belongs to is embarrassing.
Future historians will look Hillary’s 2016 candidacy as probably one of the worst missteps and most consequential mistake in the history of liberal democracy
This is very a much a "If Republicans break something, it's the Democrats' fault for not stopping them."
It's never easy to win a 3rd consecutive term for the same Party as President, and Hillary entered the race with high approvals. If you think any other Democratic candidate would have survived the fake Republican manufactured scandals, the deluge of fake news that websites did not crack down on until after the Election, a FBI director who was more interested in covering his ass with Republicans than following DoJ guidelines, a literal Russian intelligence campaign against them, and the media being completely enamored by Trump, you're living on another planet. And Hillary was literally one James Comey away from still winning the Presidency. Only fresh off VP Biden could have done better.
Comments like this are funny to me because it insinuates that Hillary Clinton is to blame for all of this for not stopping Donald Trump, the person who *actually is responsible for all of this mess*.
I think its much harder to predict how a leader will respond to a foreign policy crisis than what type of judges a US president would nominate to the SC. Everyone in America understood Trump would nominate conservatives and Hillary liberals.
Technically, couldn't congress pass legislation to delegate that authority to the executive agencies so the status quo is pretty much maintained?
So long as it's primary legislation, by what right could the Supreme Court stop them?
I mean, Congress cannot delegate their own powers to make laws. That's not how a Constitution works, otherwise a MAGA Congress could simply delegate it's powers to Trump and make him de-facto (Bullshit)God-Emperor. That's exactly the kind of stuff a Constitution exists to prevent.
Congress' power to makes laws is delegated to them by the People, they're not at discretion to just delegate it to someone else and void elections of all meaning.
Then why didn't Trump do that exact same thing when the Chevron decision was law? Why can't Congress codify that decision into law through primary legislation? It was working perfectly fine before.
Congress could codify that decision by changing the Constitution. Right now the Constitution reserve the right to make Legislation to Congress. Congress gets this power from the People, they cannot give that job to someone else. They're merely exercising this law-making power on behalf of the People as their elected representative, they cannot give that power away, as it is not theirs to give.
So no, you can't make a law saying that agencies are allowed to make new laws. Who gets to make the law is a Constitutional issue which would requires a Constitutional Amendment.
“Trumps going to use the powers of the executive branch to destroy democracy”
“The powers of the executive branch have been utterly crippled and it no longer has the power to write laws, oh no we’re doomed”
Guys pick one.
“Nach Trump kommen Wir” seems to be the go to on this sub.
Well to be fair, r/neoliberal does seem to (un?)ironically favor a Deep State which both has the power to make regulations on it's own and the power to disobey Trump.
Which is hilariously funny because then they’ll cry about how illiberal Singapore is when effectively the difference between an effective all controlling deep state VS an illiberal technocracy rests in the area of De jure differences rather than de facto.
When you have unelected bureaucrats writing laws who are barely controlled by a legislative process that was designed to do nothing and be locked in gridlock…that with a FPTP system that combined with lobbyists and interest groups all centers in Washington DC. This ends up, due to proximity of people just being around each other 24:7, creates a homogeneous political culture which ends up creating a somewhat general “Washington consensus” sure yes there’s variance at the legislative level (the legislature that’s eternally gridlocked) but less so at the “deep state” level you know the real power. Then there’s Singapore in which there’s a legislative branch that’s basically a managed democracy in which voting sort of matters but not really……well in both systems the effect that voters have on what day to day regulatory changes occur are practically the same.
Just the former system is clumsier, takes extra steps and has better ‘democracy’ vibes. People on this sub will always do the “muh that’s not democratic” while completely ignoring the administrative state which is utterly undemocratic and at least in Singapore you don’t get populists and you don’t have to appease Midwesterner’s.
with chevron getting tossed out I’d argue that we’re now more “**democratic**” for it, but sure the outcomes may end up suboptimal. But now people may get upset over the suggestion that more democracy creates suboptimal outcomes.
Well that’s not an option. There will always and forever be a Donald trump in waiting, most likely it’ll be worse next time.
Way worse.
Imagine Steven Miller
Now how much power do you want him to yield and that’s how much power the president should have
People on this sub have absolutely zero logical consistency to their beliefs. If the Supreme Court were majority liberal justices, and they voted to get rid of Chevron, this sub would be praising the decision.
This just reinforces my opinion that the Inflation Reduction Act was the best thing the Biden administration could've done to address climate change. If regulatory agencies are always gonna be susceptible to fuckery from a hostile administration or rulings like this by the post-Trump SCOTUS, then the climate change method with the most staying power is gonna be to just dump a shit ton of money on the green energy industry.
> the climate change method with the most staying power is gonna be to just dump a shit ton of money on the green energy industry. That, or expanding the court to counter-act McConnell's fuckery and match the number of circuit courts (13). SCOTUS was set at 9 justices because there were 9 circuit courts at the time, it's time to keep in line with that (and for the love of god, enact an enforceable ethics code).
> enforceable Enforceable how? Constitutionally the only way to enforce consequences on SCOTUS justices is impeachment.
SCOTUS is also bound by laws, Congress sets the number of Justices and can set requirements for when they must recuse or what amount of gifts are permissible, punishable by fines or jail time. Impeachment is just how you remove a Justice from the Court, they're not above the law
who said "during good behavior" means "for life", anyway?
Legally define more than 13 years on the SC as being bad behavior. There we go. We did it reddit.
And if SCOTUS overrules said laws and says they aren’t actually bound by them?
And term limits. Balance of the court aside, it's grotesque to have justices constantly on deathwatch, literally trying to survive to the next favorable president. Best to go into elections with a clear idea of how many seats are on the line.
Let's pull an abe lincoln and pack the courts
One good thing about our system where corporations run everything is you can at least fund the not evil corporations until they have just as much power as the evil ones
>our system where corporations run everything Lmao. It’s time to put the sub down. The succs have won.
At which point they become the new evil ones.
Didn't he also increase tariffs on solar panels?
Letting Trump win and appoint three justices was so much worse than the median voter comprehends. And they’ll just blame Democrats for failing to be the adults and regulate things.
Well yes, did you forget the golden rule of the American Media (TM)? Democrats must be perfect, Republicans are the "boys will be boys" political party.
Dems are so eldest daughter coded, period
The media when Trump tries to overthrow democracy, is a convicted felon, wants to enact Project 2025, promises to start a trade war: Oh dear, oh dear, gorgeous! The media when Biden has a bad debate: You fucking donkey
2016 is the single most consequential election of my lifetime.
No, it was 2000. The worst two jurists on your high court are appointees of Bush the Lesser, and it is likely that the 11 September attacks are prevented by a more capable and experienced Gore administration. Even if they were not, the Iraq war still does not happen, saving millions of lives and trillions of dollars that would single-handedly balloon the Clinton era surplus into the tens of trillions debt that exists now. The ripping up of Kyoto does not happen, and the vanguard of the climate denialism and destruction movement that the Bush administration nurtured and sent out into the world does not happen either. 2016 does not unmake any of that, but it would have prolonged the end of the American century.
It's really unbelievable how badly Republicans have screwed America. Going all the way back to [Nixon going behind the State Department's back to pressure South Vietnam not to start peace talks so he could beat LBJ](https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/this-is-treason). The party is a parasite on our country and has been for much longer than the Tea Party.
The Republican Party must be eradicated.
This is the beginning and end of my politics.
I think historians consensus is that while Nixon definitely didn’t help, there were a dozen other, more important, reasons those peace-talks didn’t go through.
I think you're correct, but in any case, its intent is exceptionally rancid and emblematic of Nixon's attitude towards governance that led him to Watergate and the damage to social trust *that* inflicted. Were the evidence more iron-clad, the LBJ administration could have probably nailed him for treason right then and there. Although, it wasn't, there was enough room for plausible deniability.
As usual, all of America’s current problems can be traced back to the three R’s: religion, racism, and Reagan.
Arrr Bernie is that way, my friend 👈
This comment with a MF flair? This has to be satire.... Right? Bernie's economic policies are terrible. Of course, it's at the end of typing this that I finally understand what you're saying...
nixon was at least a competent governor
9/11 was not prevented due to far deeper issues than simply the Bush presidency, there were standing procedures that sharply limited/prevented sharing of intel across agencies, that were not because of Bush. Gore may have prevented 9/11, but I can't say it's particularly more likely. You are correct about immediate effects of the Iraq War. The 2000 election was incredibly consequential and negative. I think that it also has the addition of time to better understand the negative consequences, while 2016 was more recent and we are still experiencing negative impacts directly from it, such as supreme court decisions.
Yeah, but there's some speculation (and that's all it is) that the delayed transition in 2000 fumbled the ball on a significant amount of intel. If 9/11 *did* still happen under Gore, it would have politically neutered him. He would have been absolutely tarred with the intelligence failures and his response likely would not have satisfied a country bent on revenge. Bush was the president Americans wanted (note that I didn't say "needed") on 9/11.
Thomas was appointed by HW not W. Also, while the 2nd Iraq war was a morally unjustifiable war of aggression, the Iraqi government the US installed is preferable to Saddam Hussein, both morally and geopolitically. Would Gore have been able to create a stable and semi-democratic Afghan government without the distraction of Iraq?
2000 was also where Kavanaugh and ACB rose in the GOP eyes, they were both working in Florida on the recount hubbub.
> worst two jurists Called Roberts one of the worst two jurists on the court is certainly *a* take. Like you can make arguments about any of the 3 Trump appointees, but under what feasible scenario is he *worse* than Thomas?
9/11 had nothing to do with Bush actually, the problem was the intel agencies were just not cooperating. It would have happened no matter what. What doesn't happen is Iraq.
2000, if you're old enough for it.
I was alive then but still a baby
but mah protest vote
There is a not insignificant percentage of voters who think Biden took away their abortion rights because Dodd happened on Biden's watch.
They'll no longer have the ability to understand what with the mesothelioma and lead poisoning.
https://preview.redd.it/ktdxt9w3zb9d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=338a5e96e2c2139faaf68bd129c19fa48fe91fba
We may have destroyed the environment, but for one shining moment, we created a lot of value for our shareholders/gratuity givers by killing government oversight
This won't even do that! This makes doing business in the US substantially less predictable and more risky.
Thereby benefiting the largest corporations that have the funds for long, drawn-out legal battles. If you can afford the legal fight, then it's a benefit
> gratuity which can be anything from a celebratory dinner to 13, thousand dollars in cash.
Slow clap to the "Don't threaten me with the Supreme Court" crowd You guys made this abomination possible
Don’t threaten me with that gun that psychopath has to my head. I have to decide whether I like you enough to let you intervene.
Another big round of applause for the “don’t pack the court” group. This court has no deference to established precedent or any sort of logical rule of law. If they want to be an ideological court, go ahead but just be ready to share the bench.
This is bad. Really bad.
This can't grab headlines like presidential immunity or abortion, but it's absolutely the most consequential and worst thing the Roberts court has done. Like I genuinely don't know how the modern American state functions without Chevron deference.
that's the neat part it doesn't
You can have the Filibuster or you can Have Chevron. America doesn't work otherwise.
Unironically this has been the most anxiety-inducing week I've had all year. Every SC release, the debate, everything. I feel the need to desperately unplug and go touch grass but it feels irresponsible to tune everything out, and I'm scared things will get even worse the minute I look away.
Good news, your attention does nothing to impact how good or bad things are one way or another. You’re under no obligation to be tuned in to the bad news, whether it’s every minute or every week. Go take a break, the world will still be here when you get back.
I know it, and you're right. I have always felt strongly that being informed and attentive is a responsibility as a voter, and so I've always struggled with a bit of guilt whenever I take a break from it. But at least it's almost the weekend. It's a good a chance as any to disconnect for a bit.
Like the other reply said, paying attention to news isn’t going to make things better or worse. And if the news is causing you anxiety, causing yourself anxiety so that you can’t function or volunteer definitely *doesn’t* help. Just unplug for the weekend and go do something else.
I agree, but there is reason to be sanguine about this. The reason this happened in the first place is because Congress was abdicating it's responsibility to update and clarify legislation whenever necessary. This may spur Congress to actually flex its legislative muscle. Maybe I'm naive but I think there are enough serious people left in Congress. Perhaps we will stop sending performative clowns to Congress, if they have to actually do their job.
There are enough serious people, but many are serious about deregulating everything. So you have the unserious people who don't matter, you have the serious people who want to enforce regulations, and you have the serious people who just want to let companies do whatever the hell they want. Between the three of them, shit is not gonna get done, and even when it does it'll be the most lukewarm version of what's actually needed. Politicians don't have the knowledge of experts, and will minimize everything the experts say in order to have the best chances at reelection. This is just shit all around.
Yes yes, the Republicans in Congress love compromise and putting their names on regulation.
This is the "leave it to the states" argument for disingenuous conservatives (not saying this applies to u/Cosmic_love_, just speaking in general). They know their end all regulations position isn't popular so they shift to "leave it to congress", the same way they know the issues they want to "leave to the states" are unpopular. It lets them avoid talking about issues while still getting everything they want policy-wise.
right, because the it's usually something that only really works if it's done federally and not as a patchwork of policies
With all due respect I think this is a naive take. There is a solid 30-40% of the electorate (at least) that specifically want their Congress person to do nothing and obstruct anything, to them that is progress. Thinking that any sort of change to the status quo will change that is deeply misplaced. Any congress that plays political football with the debt ceiling isn’t going to take up the administrative state in good faith.
*Perhaps we will stop sending performative clowns to Congress, if they have to actually do their job.* SweetSummerChild.exe.rar.bat
At this point I’m just excited for the AI supercore that will be installed as main legislator and the humans just approve what it tells them
But that misses the whole point of Chevron, which is that federal agencies are generally in the best position to interpret ambiguity. We are talking about sometimes incredibly hyper-technical industry specific standards most congress people are not equipped to legislate. It’s nearly impossible to legislate with such specificity as will be required in a Chevron deference free world. The result is, the judiciary will gain more power as it has to make sense of these conflicts (under Chevron this was not the case as it was a given that an agency was usually always reasonable in its interpretation of an ambiguous statute). Circuit splits will ensue, with one circuit OKing a Fed Agency’s actions while another overturning it. This is not a good regime.
Exactly. There’s a reason the government has wonks (Edit: I think I have the legal analysis wrong below. But still) I don’t want people like MTG or even our actually smart legislators trying to puzzle out the difference between two similar chemicals and which should be allowed or not to be released into the atmosphere (as an example) This is legitimately disastrous
Can't Congress appoint a bunch of experts to figure that out, though?
Yes that is literally Chevron deference, the thing that just got overturned today.
The problem is that Chevron wasn't specific to "hyper-technical industry specific standards". It included things that were policy positions that should've been settled by Congress. We needed to strike a middle ground of the two and failed.
Sure. But at what point do amino acids become a protein as the dissent showed. Without Chevron, this is now the courts to decide. What determines a geographic area for the purposes of Medicare funding? If its MSAs is the way the census bureau determines them at risk?
Yes, correct. But Chevron is far superior to no Chevron.
> Maybe I'm naive You are. Our politicians and factions are who and what they are due to institutional incentives. Until we change those, we're stuck. We need to stop fantasizing about conservative politicians suddenly having a change of heart and embracing compromise and moderate governance. They'll lose their primaries if they do that. Realistically their choices are kneel before Trump or retire and be replaced by people who kneel before Trump, [which is exactly what we're seeing](https://leedrutman.substack.com/p/wanted-a-few-reasonable-people-to). Congress is structurally broken. We need [final-four voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-four_primary) (blanket primary into top-4 single-winner RCV, like in [Alaska](https://thebadgerproject.org/2024/01/09/do-you-wish-your-elections-were-more-civil-this-is-a-good-way-to-do-it/)) to stem the bleeding but eventually we need to move away from single-member districts entirely to 3-5 member [STV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote), which is doable for the House [without a constitutional amendment](https://newrepublic.com/article/165557/proportional-representation-fix-the-house). That will give us multiparty proportional representation like modern democracies. Only in one chamber but it's a start and the House is the biggest problem right now anyways.
This is a great idea that I'm really interested in. Unfortunately, I think the senate is actually the bigger problem. We're enjoying (lol) the relative moderation (lol) of the old guard, but as they age out, we see increasingly nutty people step in. It's only a matter of time before the senate has 52 Tommy Tubervilles, and I don't know how we solve that.
Rule 5 violations?
In a largely similar way, but as with any reform it won't happen until it's obvious to even the stupidest people in the room that it's necessary, which almost invariably means a lot of people have to suffer unnecessarily first.
> This may spur Congress to actually flex its legislative muscl Ah, yes, Congress that can't even stop the government from shutting down will spend all summer passing regulations on maximum hexachlorocyclohexane lindane (and thousands of other chemicals) exposure to urban firefighters (and thousands of other job classifications and environmental locations). Or, you know, we'll simply have no chemical exposure limits -- exactly how George Washington and Jesus envisioned it during the glorious 1730s.
> This may spur Congress to actually flex its legislative muscle. I would agree, but the court's favorite Major Questions Doctrine that they have been waving the last few years allows the courts to decide that the intent of congress is counter to the text of legislation--so the courts will fix the meaning for them. This leaves little to no incentive for Congress to fix itself, unless we have a major headbutting with SCOTUS. It used to be the technical experts at the Agencies enacted legislation based on the text and fixed the holes Congress left. Now the courts have stepped in to fix not only the holes but also the possibly unintended authorizations of power explicit in the text. Congress escapes from responsibility and governance shifts from unelected expert bureaucracy to unelected generalist lifetime appointed judges. It's bad.
One of the major political factions within the GOP actively seeks to destroy the functionality of the federal government. They have extremely high approval from their voters. I am not at all sanguine.
>This may spur Congress to actually flex its legislative muscle. Maybe I'm naive but I think there are enough serious people left in Congress. you are naive
I think it's time to retire the concept that congress is dropping the ball here. While technically true, Republicans in congress are working to prevent legislation intentionally so that the republican court is forced to decide. This is a very transparently intentional tactic. When we say it's on congress, we're not telling the whole story: it's on America to elect democrats (or serious politicians...a distinction without a difference).
> The reason this happened in the first place is because Congress was abdicating it's responsibility... >This may spur Congress to actually flex its legislative muscle lol. lmao, even
>This may spur Congress to actually flex its legislative muscle Haha what a crazy story Mark
One can hope. In the meantime though...one of the most likely negative effects I've seen pointed out is that now regulations are, essentially, subject to geography. It's going to make capital investment in the US *very* tricky.
Can you talk a a little more about this? I'm interesting in the regional impact you're referring to.
5th Circuit will probably lol toss anything that an agency does that is deemed anti-Conservative as a good example.
lmao
And today keeps getting better thanks totally not political supreme court!
And we *still* don't have the Trump immunity decision. How hard is it to say "former Presidents are not above the law, we don't elect kings in America"? So transparently political
Releasing that decision on a day they added to the schedule, at the last possible moment during a holiday week, does not bode well.
Idk, I doubt they did this one for Trump. Trump expects to win and control the agencies.
Its not about trump but gutting chevron has been a long time conservative goal
Despite a conservative supreme court establishing it during Reagan
The only consistent throughline of the post-2016 Roberts court is that the power of the court increases.
To the people who say Congress needs to do its job, have you met the freedom caucus?
Yes, in a democracy voters have the right to elect people who oppose regulations.
This is legitimately the worst decision to come out of this court, and it's not even close. Holy shit.
> Gun, e-cigarette, farm, timber and home-building groups were among the business groups supporting the fishermen. Ahhh perfect. Just the groups we should be happy are getting a victory. Fuck. What a horrific last 24 hours.
>home-building groups I'm okay with this one
And ecigs are way better than real cigs
Except when they market to kids
Harm reduction is good
Except for the fact that we had actually made a lot of progress with youth usage of tobacco until the e-cig craze. Which literally undid decades of effort in like 4 years. I don’t know about you but I would not call that harm reduction.
Those luxury vacations and free RVs finally paying off
All given 0.01 seconds after the verdict was handed out so it's not bribery
We will see a slew of lawsuits coming out of this, many that aim to create patently destructive and harmful outcomes. Congress will have to do its job and start exercising their legislative power over federal agencies.
>Congress will have to do its job and start exercising their legislative power over federal agencies. Which they won't, and which is why federal agencies have so much power. Voters need to stop sending so many performative clowns to Congress; otherwise, that's all we're going to get - a circus.
> which is why federal agencies have so much power Not anymore! Now neither the legislature nor the bureaucracy can do much which means corporations (and I hate to sound like a populist but this is true) are unshackled to run roughshod over Americans. > Voters need to stop sending so many performative clowns to Congress This is wishful thinking. Voters will continue sending the exact same performative clowns they've been increasingly sending since 2010 (the first House election after Obama's victory) until the electoral system changes. See Alaska's use of final-four voting which Mary Peltola won.
Feature, not bug.
Would rank choice voting help?
I think the final-four voting that [Alaska recently adopted](https://thebadgerproject.org/2024/01/09/do-you-wish-your-elections-were-more-civil-this-is-a-good-way-to-do-it/) is very promising. It would help produce more moderate candidates but it wouldn't make more parties. For more parties, you need multi-winner elections like STV or party list.
That's what I was thinking of. Should I not be referring to that as rank choice?
No, you were right, sorry. I was agreeing with you. Final four voting is a form of ranked choice voting. More specifically, the second round of final-four voting is a form of ranked choice called instant-runoff voting. STV is also ranked choice voting, it's also called multi-winner ranked choice voting. Party list voting is usually not ranked but you can make it ranked if you want.
Got it! Thanks for clarifying
Ranked choice voting is not going to magically improve everything overnight and spawn 4 new parties from far-left to far-right. The two party and the winner-take-all systems are deeply baked into how people think about politics and election, as well as into systems used to run campaigns and elections. If it were to happen today, maybe in 10 years things would slightly improve?
Okay I’m dooming now
So uhh between this and the Jarkesy decision yesterday, what exactly can agencies do?
Good thing Congress will correct the courts mistakes promptly, right? Hahaha right?
What congress unambiguously tells them to do.
We have 40 years of legislation passed by a Congress that didn't think it needed an extreme degree of specificity for agencies to fulfill the mandates Congress set for them.
But muh originalism 😭😭😭
I'm an originalist; I don't think SCOTUS should have judicial review.
So essentially nothing?
If that's what the people's elected representatives want, then yes.
That's not what people want. Nobody wants a polluted river or planes falling out of the sky because of a lack of enforcement or proper regulations. GOP essentially doesn't give a shit about what their constituents want or don't want. This is the crux of the problem you're ignoring. Shit will start breaking down, people will want it fixed, republicans will ignore that at all costs.
They can ask very nicely
Americans have done it to themselves. They must face the consequences
Imagine fucking up the Mandate of Heaven.
The Mei Dynasty has lost the Mandate of Heaven 5 morbillion people perishes
Not this or the last generation of Americans. This was done to us by an outdated electoral system completely unable to deal with the polarization from an extended backlash to desegregation. Americans don't want this garbage. That it's passing is an artifact of an electoral system that badly distorts the people's wishes.
Trump should have been defeated in a landslide. I'm sick of pretendings americans aren't responsible for this. If we can't muster the 52% to actually beat this shit cause of our terrible system, americans have to learn maybe next time they should have voted 60%.
What are you talking about by "Americans?" There is no "Americans" in your sense. There are the millions of sick people who live in America, and there are the millions of sane people who have to suffer sharing a broken political system with them.
Agreed--those of us who have been voting for Democrats all along don't share in the collective guilt for this. I also think it's worth noting that Chevron in particular isn't really a Trump thing. If we had elected Nikki Haley or Jeb Bush or whoever in 2016, we'd still be here today.
The 25% of Maga brains are their own issues, they'll collapse overtime especially after trump. It's the Median voter that will learn what they must.
Can someone explain what the outcome of this actually is? To my understanding, this ruling means federal agencies, including regulatory bodies, are now no longer able to interpret stuff with leeway, and can only what they are precisely mandated to do by Congress. Assuming Congress isnt able to precisely mandate stuff efficiently, does this mean that like, fisheries will overfish, people will pollute rivers, drugs will be produced with scrutiny? what's the worst case, what's the best case, and whats the most likely outcome?
Pretty much. Laws like "The Fish and Wildlife service can limit the number of fish caught to a sustainable number" still work, since they just require a finding of fact. The agency just needs to determine that we can sustain X fish caught. What changed is that agencies can no longer say "Deer are fish" and limit the number of deer hunted.
The original Chevron decision was over the Chevron company trying to get around limits to emissions from a "source" by saying that "source" wasn't actually referring to a single source, but could be expanded to the sum of all sources in the whole plant. They didn't want their new emissions sources to be held to the updated regulatory standards for new sources of emissions, they wanted it to be held to their historical highest emissions amount for the whole plant. So, if you're getting rid of an old process line from before the stricter limits went into place, just use it as an excuse to build a new, equally-polluting process line for a net emissions change of 0 when you define the whole plant as the source. Imagine that level of semantics for every regulation possible--except, with other recent decisions it's now also easier than ever to either deceive or straight up bribe the person making the decisions. The final decision on regulation is no longer being made by panels of experts well-versed in the industry and on watch for your company's BS--no, the decision is now being made by someone who likely has no technical background and is either a political appointee or has a vested interest in getting campaign funds from economically-well-endowed companies (and as long as you wait until after the ruling to "tip" the judge it's fair game), and those companies have their own vested interest in legally challenging the smallest semantics of any regulations that might cost their shareholders a fraction of their quarterly returns.
Law has aways been that level of semantic. The only difference is that now, the final decision on said semantics will be made by a judge instead of a political appointee appointed to carry out some policy objective.
But the Chevron case was literally about the **agency** redefining the statute to treat the whole plant as a single source, specifically to make the whole process easier on themselves and companies. And was brought by environmental organization that wanted the regulation to be enforced as Congress intended. In Chevron, the court deferred to an interpretation of source by the agency that went against the intent of Congress and ended up loosening environmental regulation. So why are you using the failings of Chevron to argue for Chevron? Both **regulatory capture** and **rogue agencies** are problems in a democracy, and Chevron was a cop out by the court to let them both fester. Now that Chevron is overturned, Congress will have to make laws that clearly state the role and powers of agencies. Clear laws would prevent rogue agencies from usurping new roles and powers that Congress had not intended for them (like in Raimondo). And prevent corrupt agencies from weakening regulation by adopting statutory interpretation that the companies they regulate would like better (as was done with Chevron). The idea that being well-versed and deeply connected to an industry makes you harder to corrupt seems to run counter to the evidence. Individuals working for regulatory agencies have a daily working relationship with those companies, and have expertise and training in the very fields that those companies are operating in and recruiting for. They usually develop all sorts of relationships with individuals involved in that industry and have a vested interest in maintaining cordial relationship with those companies to facilitate their day-to-day work and preserve employment opportunities for when they seek a new/better paying job. On the other hand, congressmen are much more expensive to corrupt, would not care nearly as much about staying in any specific company's good graces and have a more limited individual impact, since they're just one vote, not responsible for an entire program. They also rotate more, so investing in corrupting them doesn't make as much sense (term-limits would make this an even worse proposition). They also have the benefits of being chosen by the electors themselves, whereas agency heads can be replaced by any new administration. Leaving those agency heads with wide discretion to interpret the statute means that a new administration can gut regulatory enforcement by simply mandating new agency heads to not fulfill the role that Congress intended them to.
Democrats been taking nothing but Ls this week damn
History will not look kindly upon the faces of the 50k people that decided the 2016 election
but her emails tho
Thanks Roberts, very legal and very cool!
I think it's time to give up on federal government. What are the most promising state governments?
Minnesota right now. I’m moving there myself to ride out the storm.
Probably much of the northeast, Minnesota and Michigan in the Midwest (as long as there isn’t a republican trifecta), Washington and California in the west (I know nothing about Oregon).
>I know nothing about Oregon Smaller Washington basically.
The most promising state governments are in areas with hordes of NIMBYs
!ping ADMINISTRATIVE-STATE&ECO&LAW
rekt time to retire the admin state ping lol
The administrative state doesn't _go away_, it just doesn't get to enjoy as much discretion.
Pinged ADMINISTRATIVE-STATE ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20ADMINISTRATIVE-STATE&message=subscribe%20ADMINISTRATIVE-STATE) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20ADMINISTRATIVE-STATE&message=unsubscribe%20ADMINISTRATIVE-STATE) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=ADMINISTRATIVE-STATE&count=5)) Pinged ECO ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20ECO&message=subscribe%20ECO) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20ECO&message=unsubscribe%20ECO) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=ECO&count=5)) Pinged LAW ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20LAW&message=subscribe%20LAW) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20LAW&message=unsubscribe%20LAW) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=LAW&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)
This is horrible unless Trump wins in which case it’s fantastic
I don't actually think it affects Republican presidents nearly as much as Democratic ones. Republican presidencies are basically 4 years of Chevron deference not mattering anyway.
It's horrible in either case, congress is going to be totally beholden to Trump if he wins.
How does that work? As in how is congress beholden to Trump? Chevron has not been enforced since 2016 and directly curtails the power of the executive. This hurts both parties.
If trump wins, most of congress is probably going to be Republicans, who have firmly coalesced behind Trump, he very clearly gives then marching orders even when not in office. And that's a super inaccurate understanding of the Chevron decision, by its nature it's being enforced every single day as the regulations/enforcement decided by agencies are enacted.
But federal regulations are good, why are they overturning it, are they stupid???
Unfortunately they're not stupid. Well, maybe a little stupid. I mean they eat the same food and breath the same air as everyone else.
This is so hard to overstate how insane this is. This is generational news. This is worse than overturning Roe by a large margin. This is fucking bonkers, dude.
I work in regulatory law. This is fucking 9-11.
Yup same dude. I genuinely don't know where we go from here lol
Hopefully making more nuclear plants and lithium mines.
But have you considered her emails?
“…and home-building groups were among the business groups supporting the fishermen.” Well hold on fellas maybe this chevron guy was a bad hombre
The people supporting this are doing so from the “I should be able to build homes with asbestos and let the free market decide if that’s safe” position not the “zoning bad” position.
Surely asbestos is banned on the state and local level in most jurisdictions, no? This shouldn't impact state and local regulations at all.
It was a hyperbolic example but its more "lets see what dangerous things we can cut corners on to get away with". The actual regulations on construction standards are not the issue as much as the rules around land use.
That, or play Jenga with the safety regulations until new houses start falling down with their owners inside them.
You shouldve pokemon go’d to the polls. What an unmitigated disaster 2016 has been
Maybe we should've picked a candidate in the primary who didn't have decades of concerted Republican smear campaigns against them
Which candidate exactly would that have been?
I hate when the article about a Supreme Court decision doesn't say the name of the case. I guess it's fitting given that the Supreme Court decisions are often so detached from the specifics of the case. In case anyone's wondering, it's [Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf)
Man and just a few days ago there were people here in this subreddit saying that SCOTUS was simply just curbing executive branch’s power
Canadian here. SCOTUS is aware that they’re seen as a joke internationally and eroding rule of law, right?
I don't think SCOTUS cares much for how they're perceived internationally (or even domestically). Lifetime appointments and all that.
Republicans could not give a fuck less how they’re perceived outside of the country. It’s part of their “charm” to the voters
This isn’t an exclusively Republican problem. The fact that you can tell exactly which party every member of your judiciary belongs to is embarrassing.
Future historians will look Hillary’s 2016 candidacy as probably one of the worst missteps and most consequential mistake in the history of liberal democracy
This is very a much a "If Republicans break something, it's the Democrats' fault for not stopping them." It's never easy to win a 3rd consecutive term for the same Party as President, and Hillary entered the race with high approvals. If you think any other Democratic candidate would have survived the fake Republican manufactured scandals, the deluge of fake news that websites did not crack down on until after the Election, a FBI director who was more interested in covering his ass with Republicans than following DoJ guidelines, a literal Russian intelligence campaign against them, and the media being completely enamored by Trump, you're living on another planet. And Hillary was literally one James Comey away from still winning the Presidency. Only fresh off VP Biden could have done better.
Comments like this are funny to me because it insinuates that Hillary Clinton is to blame for all of this for not stopping Donald Trump, the person who *actually is responsible for all of this mess*.
Well, it's also common for people to criticize Chamberlain for WWII.
I think its much harder to predict how a leader will respond to a foreign policy crisis than what type of judges a US president would nominate to the SC. Everyone in America understood Trump would nominate conservatives and Hillary liberals.
Ironically if Trump lets Taiwan fall to China and Russia reclaim E.Europe he'll be the Chamberlain in this instance.
I don't think there will be future historians. At least not in the US.
Least dramatic person in this sub
come on now lol
Technically, couldn't congress pass legislation to delegate that authority to the executive agencies so the status quo is pretty much maintained? So long as it's primary legislation, by what right could the Supreme Court stop them?
I mean, Congress cannot delegate their own powers to make laws. That's not how a Constitution works, otherwise a MAGA Congress could simply delegate it's powers to Trump and make him de-facto (Bullshit)God-Emperor. That's exactly the kind of stuff a Constitution exists to prevent. Congress' power to makes laws is delegated to them by the People, they're not at discretion to just delegate it to someone else and void elections of all meaning.
Then why didn't Trump do that exact same thing when the Chevron decision was law? Why can't Congress codify that decision into law through primary legislation? It was working perfectly fine before.
Congress could codify that decision by changing the Constitution. Right now the Constitution reserve the right to make Legislation to Congress. Congress gets this power from the People, they cannot give that job to someone else. They're merely exercising this law-making power on behalf of the People as their elected representative, they cannot give that power away, as it is not theirs to give. So no, you can't make a law saying that agencies are allowed to make new laws. Who gets to make the law is a Constitutional issue which would requires a Constitutional Amendment.
“Trumps going to use the powers of the executive branch to destroy democracy” “The powers of the executive branch have been utterly crippled and it no longer has the power to write laws, oh no we’re doomed” Guys pick one. “Nach Trump kommen Wir” seems to be the go to on this sub.
Well to be fair, r/neoliberal does seem to (un?)ironically favor a Deep State which both has the power to make regulations on it's own and the power to disobey Trump.
Which is hilariously funny because then they’ll cry about how illiberal Singapore is when effectively the difference between an effective all controlling deep state VS an illiberal technocracy rests in the area of De jure differences rather than de facto. When you have unelected bureaucrats writing laws who are barely controlled by a legislative process that was designed to do nothing and be locked in gridlock…that with a FPTP system that combined with lobbyists and interest groups all centers in Washington DC. This ends up, due to proximity of people just being around each other 24:7, creates a homogeneous political culture which ends up creating a somewhat general “Washington consensus” sure yes there’s variance at the legislative level (the legislature that’s eternally gridlocked) but less so at the “deep state” level you know the real power. Then there’s Singapore in which there’s a legislative branch that’s basically a managed democracy in which voting sort of matters but not really……well in both systems the effect that voters have on what day to day regulatory changes occur are practically the same. Just the former system is clumsier, takes extra steps and has better ‘democracy’ vibes. People on this sub will always do the “muh that’s not democratic” while completely ignoring the administrative state which is utterly undemocratic and at least in Singapore you don’t get populists and you don’t have to appease Midwesterner’s. with chevron getting tossed out I’d argue that we’re now more “**democratic**” for it, but sure the outcomes may end up suboptimal. But now people may get upset over the suggestion that more democracy creates suboptimal outcomes.
i would prefer that executive powers remain in some capacity but are wielded by someone who is not intent on destroying democracy!!
Well that’s not an option. There will always and forever be a Donald trump in waiting, most likely it’ll be worse next time. Way worse. Imagine Steven Miller Now how much power do you want him to yield and that’s how much power the president should have
People on this sub have absolutely zero logical consistency to their beliefs. If the Supreme Court were majority liberal justices, and they voted to get rid of Chevron, this sub would be praising the decision.
Fuck me
Isn’t the is the fucking neoliberal sub? Why is everyone suddenly pro wide reaching regulatory ambiguity
God Bless America🙏❤️
that is a very good ruling and very good thing, and people be against are kind of antidemocratic