[rayiner]

> Citing a prior ruling that contains more precedence around the idea that federal agencies should have the right to interpret and enforce regulations is an interesting way to argue that it's a controversial topic.

That's not what Skidmore said. It said that courts should defer to agency interpretations to the degree they are "persuasive." Which is almost a truism--obviously courts can defer to reasoning they find persuasive. Chevron went further, and required courts to defer to agency interpretations if they were "reasonable," even if the court would have interpreted the law differently.

> I'm also unsure how the political makeup of the court 80 years ago has anything to do with whether or not the court is more political now than ever

The Court is less political than ever. In the mid-20th century, the Court was at the peak of politicization, striking down democratically adopted laws based on "emanations from penumbras" of constitutional provisions.

Regarding Thomas, you sound like you're reading from some sort of talking points. Thomas was the OG constitutional purist. The notion that he's developed this views because he want on vacations with his personal friend is absurd.

[cthalupa]

I imagine both of us sound to the other like we're reading from a list of talking points. On your side, I see your replies as twisting things around to try and get to being right through some narrow definition - obviously Chevron further codified things - otherwise we'd just reference Skidmore and be done with it. But that doesn't change the fact that it was codifying existing practices, which is my entire point.

As for Thomas, I do not understand how any rational human being could make excuses for him (or Alito, to a smaller extent.) If you don't think it is a massive conflict of interest to be taking part in rulings related to the interests of Crow when he has received millions of dollars worth of perks, vacations, etc. from him, I don't know that we can have a serious conversation. How can anyone remain impartial when the interests of someone who has lavished them with the equivalent of many millions of dollars in gifts are in the balance? I'm also not stating that Thomas is newly compromised, so I'm not sure that his original positions mean much when I believe he's been compromised from the start. The difference is now that he and his compatriots are firmly in the driver's seat.

[rayiner]

> I imagine both of us sound to the other like we're reading from a list of talking points.

I’m talking about an academic debate around Chevron that’s been around ever since I started law school, and was already robust for a couple of decades before that. This trying to connect it to Thomas’s vacations thing has come out overnight and seems out of a script.

> But that doesn't change the fact that it was codifying existing practices, which is my entire point.

That certainly not what I learned in my administrative law class! Skidmore says judges may defer to the agency if they find the agency’s interpretation persuasive. But the judge always retains the power to decide the meaning of the statute itself. Chevron changes that significantly. The agency interprets the statute, and the court can only disagree if that interpretation is unreasonable. And Chevron allows the meaning of the statute to change with each administration.

> As for Thomas, I do not understand how any rational human being could make excuses for him (or Alito, to a smaller extent.) If you don't think it is a massive conflict of interest to be taking part in rulings related to the interests of Crow when he has received millions of dollars worth of perks, vacations, etc. from him, I don't know that we can have a serious conversation.

You’re misreporting the facts, probably because you’re reading from talking points: https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/04/24/supreme-cou.... There was one 2004 case, involving a portfolio company of Crow’s firm, where Crow was not involved in the management. Critically: “Crow Holdings and Harlan Crow’s name do not appear on the 2004 court filings.” And the Supreme Court rejected the company’s certiorari petition.

The Supreme Court gets thousands of certiorari petitions every year. They identify conflicts based on the people who are named in the filings. (That’s how all judges do it.) The idea that he’s corrupt because he voted against hearing a certiorari petition—to the detriment of the company—in a case where Crowe’s name or his company’s name don’t appear, is ridiculous. It’s a deliberate effort to try and delegitimize the court through mudslinging.

[cthalupa]

> This trying to connect it to Thomas’s vacations thing has come out overnight and seems out of a script.

Overnight? This has been brewing for years - we continue to receive more and more information, but it's hardly anything new.

> That certainly not what I learned in my administrative law class! Skidmore says judges may defer to the agency if they find the agency’s interpretation persuasive. But the judge always retains the power to decide the meaning of the statute itself. Chevron changes that significantly. The agency interprets the statute, and the court can only disagree if that interpretation is unreasonable. And Chevron allows the meaning of the statute to change with each administration.

I'm not sure if I'm being strawmanned here or we're just talking past each other.

My point is that federal agencies had been taking regulatory action before both Skidmore and Chevron. Do you disagree with this statement? If so, how do you suppose that these cases even got to the Supreme Court? I am not arguing that Skidmore and Chevron did not further codify the procedures, but that the status quo was Congress being able to create federal agencies with regulatory authority, and that the explicit reversal of Chevron is a significant neutering of the ability for both the legislative and executive branch to do that.

> Critically: “Crow Holdings and Harlan Crow’s name do not appear on the 2004 court filings.” And the Supreme Court rejected the company’s certiorari petition.

Crow spends significant portions of his fortune on political lobbying. He clearly has interests that the Supreme Court weighs in on that do not involve him or his companies directly as a plaintiff or defendant. I think it is ludicrous that any justice would feel it is acceptable to receive millions of dollars in benefits from someone who is so active in the political arena, and I would say the same if it came to light that liberal justices had done so. How you think it isn't a conflict of interest is beyond me. I know I have biases on, say, gun control, due to having several friends that are extremely pro-gun, and the most they buy for me is drinks on my birthday. It beggars belief that you honestly think Thomas would not be influenced in his decisions by his "personal friend's" largesse.

[klyrs]

> The Court is less political than ever.

They're going through precedent like cordwood, that's not apolitical by any stretch of the imagination. Don't mistake your politics for neutrality