[HideousKojima]

That's a weird way to say "Only judges are allowed to determine if an agency is acting within its congressionally (democratically) established authority or if it's autocratically making sweeping regulatory changes beyond their democratically granted authority."

[light_hue_1]

That's a weird way to say you have no idea what Chevron was about and what judges do.

Judges always determined if an agency was acting within its statute.

The question that Chevron settled, was what if the statute was too ambiguous? Congress used to update laws regularly, but those times are over. It can't legislate effectively anymore. A lot of our laws are ancient and they're designed for a bygone era that often predates even the computer, never mind the internet, modern medicine, etc.

Chevron said, judges don't get to make decisions in those cases. Because those would be arbitrary decisions. It's better to have third party experts make those decisions until Congress can catch up. And if Congress has a problem it can overrule them as it always could. Agencies set up processes to make the review open, to gather data and evidence, comments for the public, etc.

Now we have the worst of all worlds. Appointed partisan judges, with no oversight, no accountability, get to make monumental arbitrary decisions about how minutia of our lives work, based on absolutely nothing, with no review, no criteria and no relevant expertise at all. All while essentially having no code of ethics and being subject to lobbying.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> Congress used to update laws regularly, but those times are over. It can't legislate effectively anymore.

This is defeatist, and misses the point. Congress should continue to update laws regularly and the SC decision provides an impetus for them to start doing so. Congress mandating the regulation also has the effect of Congress determining the scope of legislation. With Chevron, there's no reason for them to update laws because they just let, e.g., the EPA make up the scope of the laws themselves. (Why people will claim "overreach".)

The scenario this enabled is a new presidential administration would be elected who would fire the old regulatory leadership and hire their own, effectively allowing the executive branch to re-write the law every 4-8 years. There was a lot of opinion thrown around about how the SC decision is a power grab for the judicial branch and I just don't see it. They took power away from the executive and gave it back to the legislative, where it had been before Congress became useless.

Whether or not one agrees with this approach is worth considering, but man, talk about comments that demonstrate the author has "no idea what Chevron was about".

[light_hue_1]

Wow. Your viewpoint is that Congress doesn't work so we should give it more to do?

Ok. Well I have nothing to say to that. Enjoy your pollution, diseases and shortned lifespan!

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

What a bad faith take. I recommend taking another pass at the comment and trying to get a more respectable understanding. You’ll never find common ground with others by adopting such a shitty attitude.

[PhasmaFelis]

The price of freedom is ~~eternal vigilance~~ childhood brain damage.

[relaxing]

The children with permanent CNS damage can simply elect representatives in congress who are willing to act on their behalf, and then keep them in office across 3 election cycles until there is a supermajority able to enact change, and also hold the office of the president until the current SCOTUS majority retires/dies off.

[HideousKojima]

Then start a violent revolution to install a government that will mandate this and whatever else you want by fiat. But until then or otherwise, stop pretending that unelected officials making decisions beyond the authority delegated to them by elected officials is democratic.

[PhasmaFelis]

The thing in this particular case, as you know, is that we have a very obviously biased Supreme Court making decisions based on what's good for the corporations paying them, instead of either settled precedent or the intentions of the original legislators.

The intended checks having failed, they're allowed to do this. You're old enough to know that "allowed to" does not automatically mean "morally right."

EDIT: Actually, let's bottom-line it: Stop pretending that pointing out any flaws in a democratic government is anti-democratic. That's exactly backwards.

[rpnx]

It is a typical example of "I'm right so I should be allowed to bypass the democratic process and do whatever I want" thinking. It's quite dangerous.