[hedora]

The problem with your argument is that, for decades, congress has been passing and failing to update laws under the understanding that the courts would apply Chevron deference.

If the courts decide to get rid of that, they're intentionally misinterpreting the laws that congress has passed over that time. They're also effectively rewriting a large fraction of US law, despite the fact that the constitution is carefully designed to prevent such a small group of (unelected or elected) people from modifying US law that quickly, and without safe guards.

The current Supreme Court has repeatedly undermined separation of powers, and they're explicitly doing so against the wishes of the electorate. Their behavior is fundamentally undemocratic.

[jakogut]

> Their behavior is fundamentally undemocratic.

Correct, because in the United States, our model of government is a Democratic Republic, not a democracy. For all of the flaws of our system of law, the Constitution is considered supreme, and any laws that violate the Constitution are to be considered null and void. The job of the Supreme Court is to decide the Constitutionality of laws.

One interpretation of removing Chevron deference is that it's defacto rewriting law, another is that executive agencies have been doing this for decades already. The truth is probably some mix of the two.

[noobermin]

>Constitution is considered supreme, and any laws that violate the Constitution are to be considered null and void. The job of the Supreme Court is to decide the Constitutionality of laws.

A plain and non-ideological reading of what you typed is that this is a contradiction at best and saying the SCOTUS supersedes the constitution at worst.

[yieldcrv]

At worst yes, the difficulty of overriding them via constitutional amendment or a restructured law is a vulnerability of our system

But the paradox is that is part of the constitution too. There are several creatures of the constitution that supersede the constitution. Treaties can.

[Wolfenstein98k]

Only if you presuppose that the agency is always right.

Agencies are often wrong and sometimes very seriously so. The FDA trying to take over regulation of tests is another example.

There is a perfectly legitimate view that Chevron deference is - at least in some circumstances - not indefeasible.

[remarkEon]

>The problem with your argument is that, for decades, congress has been passing and failing to update laws under the understanding that the courts would apply Chevron deference.

It is literally the job of Congress to update laws. That they are bad at doing that is not relevant to the place of the Court in the structure of this country's government.

>If the courts decide to get rid of that, they're intentionally misinterpreting the laws that congress has passed over that time.

The opposite of this is true. If the Court decides to jettison Chevron deference (you should look in to why that case is called "Chevron") it means that gasp our legislators have to actually listen to constituents and write laws and not just bet that the executive branch in the next election cycle agrees with them.

[alistairSH]

That’s not quite true.

Overturning Chevron means federal courts no longer have to give deference to agency experts. Unelected judges will have free rein to impose their own views in these cases.

Nothing about Chevron will force Congress to write more precise laws.

[dvdkon]

Courts acting as authorities of last appeal doesn't sound like some class of people imposing their views. They're just doing their jobs, and I don't see why they should be less trustworthy than (also unelected) bureaucrats.

[runako]

It's less about being more or less trustworthy and more about spheres of competence. Judges are experts on the laws that are written, but they cannot be experts in all the areas Congress requires regulation.

People are not interchangeable: if you take a financial regulatory expert from SEC and move them to FDA and ask them to regulate drug adjuvants, you're not going to get great results. Dropping Chevron would put judges in the position of being experts in all the fields where Congress requires regulation.

[remarkEon]

>Dropping Chevron would put judges in the position of being experts in all the fields where Congress requires regulation.

Genuinely curious as to why people think this. This is the standard talking point you see about this issue, and it's just not true. Getting rid of Chevron doesn't mean that judges need to become experts in all minutia of a particular field. It means the executive can't liberally interpret statute to their heart's desire. Maybe you mean that you expect more cases to come to the courts if Chevron is dropped, but cases on complex technical matters already come to the courts all the time in all fields. Are you concerned that the volume of cases goes up or something?

[dvdkon]

True, but judges should be used to ruling on cases involving technical details they don't fully understand. They could refuse to weigh the opinions of outside experts, but I don't think they would.

Besides, this works in other countries, in the Czech Republic for instance, I'm pretty sure I've seen lawsuits against regulatory agencies here.

[alistairSH]

Chevron doesn't prevent lawsuits. All it does is require the judge overseeing the case to give deference to the regulatory agency when there is ambiguity in the law.

Really simple example: Congress passes a law that requires the FAA to regulate the safety of commercial aviation, but doesn't explicitly say "all panels must be bolted to the fuselage".

FAA decides any removable panel must be positively attached to the fuselage using castle nuts and pins or an equivalent design.

Boeing thinks that rule is wrong (overbearing, overreach, poorly conceived, whatever).

Under Chevron, the judge hears both sides, and defers to the FAA on the issue of safety. The law wasn't explicit about design of door panel fasteners, but was clear the FAA should regulate the industry.

Without Chevron, there is no deference to the experts at the FAA. The judge is free to impose their own worldview on the case.

Note that with Chevron in place, the judge can still determine the FAA overreached its authority (like if they decided to regulate car transport on the way to the airport). The judge just can't ignore the presumed expertise of the executive branch in applying details to Congressionally mandated regulation.

Without Chevron, we trade executive expertise for the whims of an unelected judge. While bureaucrats are unelected, they are still beholden to Congress for both funding and legislation allowing their existence in the first place. The President can't simply conjure regulators out of thin air.

[runako]

> this works in other countries, in the Czech Republic for instance

Our current Chevron regime works here under our existing set of laws and structures.

[remarkEon]

>Unelected judges will have free rein to impose their own views in these cases.

As opposed to unelected bureaucrats who serve at the whim of the executive branch and are often political appointees? Do you not remember the meltdown this site had over Trump's FCC commissioner and his views on net neutrality?

[alistairSH]

Yes, exactly.

If an executive agency steps out of line, Congress can defund it or pass other legislation clarifying their intent.

No such mechanism exists with the federal bench (other than impeachment).

All Chevron does is impose a restriction on the federal courts when deciding cases brought against the executive branch. It doesn't give bureaucrats free rein to do what they want.

[stackskipton]

Congress can just overrule federal bench by saying their wrong and writing clarifying language. Very popular example of this is Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that specifically made it that issuing a discriminatory paycheck restarted 180 day clock.

[faramarz]

Undemocratic or capitalistic but with a cap?

If it were such that individual states with greater agency could negatively impact neighbouring states and in Chevrons original case, environment and agriculture, then it’s a dangerous precedent of opening up states to competitive market at the detriment greater societal impact and responsibilities. Both positive and negative but the incentives are there to push towards later in pursuit of fast profits and deferred responsibilities.

Am I making sense? States can compete for corporate interests, while we know full well who runs the senate: lobbyists with deep pockets.