The number of software engineers in this thread who think they are legal scholars is a sight to behold. It reminds me of all the bad legal advice on Stack Overflow, Quora, and Leddit.
I didn't defend jack fuckin shit. All I did was point out that nobody arguing for or against this case on HN has anything to say worth reading about it.
I hate the administrative state's current structure just enough that I don't care which administration or court dismantles it.
From my perspective the Federal Government subjugated all the states by magically noticing that all commerce had become interstate commerce by the 1930s. Its a parallel country overlaying the union of states, instead of federalism - which has a definition divergent of what "Federal" means to us in reference to the national government.
Harmonizing that all back under the President is a step, right before going after the Interstate Commerce clause itself.
I don't care how disruptive that is, its Congress' job. If Congress can't form consensus the country is done, obviously. Otherwise, surface candidates that can actually bridge consensus, which is always an option. Everyone's last minute civil rights goals aren't going to happen, duh! So drop that just like all administrations from the past 250 years did consecutively, and pass relevant things that keep the lights on.
You are upset about the federal government taking power over the states but are happy to have the power now concentrated under one man.
I don’t think you’ve thought through your point or you are desperately struggling to get through the cognitive dissonance. Nothing has indicated that SCOTUS will defang Trump. Their history so far has been heads Trump wins, tails Trumps enemy loses.
Like they ruled Biden couldn’t cancel student loans but then bend over backward to let Trump do as he pleases.
You’re getting a king, not a return of power to the states
I’m getting harmonization of federal agencies that shouldnt have existed in this form to begin with, I understand why Congress tried to make agencies outside of the purview of the Executive
I think its a speedbump that now they all will be under the purview of the Executive
Its not controversial to me as most of them already are and were never suggested to be outside of it, most agencies weren't formed as independent just a couple
the entire paradigm should be scrapped, in the mean time their sovereignty over a domain is gone
the other side gets a President eventually too, if that freaks out Republicans then they can get consensus with the currently freaked out Democrats to change it
The sovereignty isn’t gone, it was moved to the president directly.
While this SCOTUS is tossing out the chevron defense because Congress apparently shouldn’t be able to delegate out broad power and needs to pass a law for each chemical agencies like the DEA are supposed to police, they are going to green light the agencies set aside as independent by Congress and let the President do whatever he wants.
This is just another executive power grab adding to the Imperial Presidency.
I also am not confident in the other side getting power again given that this admin is the only one in the history of the United States who disrupted the peaceful transfer of power, and no I’m not referencing the J6 riots but their false slate of electors in multiple states which was the real attempt to overthrow the government
Everyone who replied completely missed my point, despite how simply and clearly I worded it. You're doing a masterful job illustrating it.
Everyone around here thinks that just because you don't need a college degree to become a software engineer or found an eventual multibillion dollar software company, that the same must generalize to every other profession, including biotech, law, and even medicine. Every technocrat is under the same delusion as Bill Gates that succeeding in their software qualifies them to do anything, despite the face that most people around here cannot even change their own spark plug or replace a flat tire.
I have an opinion on Chevron deference: letting party in a lawsuit interpret the laws and regulations concerning their own case is asinine. However, I don't pretend to know whether or not it can or should hold up in court based on stare decisis or any particular legal tradition.
More importantly, I don't operate under some delusion that other people would benefit from hearing my opinion on matters outside my own education or vocation.
"A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards."
-Proverbs 29:11
I'm an electrical engineer. As someone that can release a product that works from day one, do I get to opine on this topic?
(Okay, I have an amateur radio license and have designed devices to be compliant with 47 CFR part 15, so theoretically I'm a little more versed in FCC operations, but this is all high-school level civics that seems to be actively unlearned by anyone with an MFA or any degree in journalism.)
Constitutionally, federal agencies have to be authorized by the legislative branch and executed by the executive branch. Federal agencies not only can't be truly independent, they're beholden to two separate branches of government, either of which can reduce their reach, and the judicial branch has oversight to ensure what they do is actually authorized.
They're not likely to rule any differently in this case, and except for actions that would otherwise be unconstitutional, none of these rulings prevent congress from creating regulations or authorizations allowing federal agencies to performing their respective overturned actions, it just prevents them from acting until congress has authorized them to do so.
Also, I'm convinced that the last case involved a violation of the third amendment, but no one seems to care about the third amendment.
But if the law says "this person can only be fired for cause", and the President is supposed to faithfully execute the law, shouldn't he only be able to fire the person for cause? Or what, the President can just choose parts of the laws he doesn't like anymore while operating the executive branch and yet still be found to faithfully be executing the law?
All the laws give limitations on what the executive is allowed to do. So this idea that its limiting the abilities of the executive and that's not allowable seems meaningless to me, that's what the laws are for. The laws are there to define how the executive is to act. The executive is then supposed to faithfully do those actions.
If the President has total control over the executive branch, why can't he just go tell the people in the executive branch to go do illegal things all the time? Is he just no longer bound to the law at all? If Congress says the executive needs to make a food stamp program, should he not be required to actually make one? If the Congress says dumping hazardous waste should be limited, should he not be required to actually regulate dumping? Wouldn't he fail at faithfully executing the laws?
You're as qualified to opine on legal matters as is a software engineer who works in biotech to opine on medicine. That is to say, a lot less than you think.
You're not Antonin Scalia, you didn't earn it- have some humility.