It is the point. Congress does little anymore. Playing political games is all they do.
Supreme Court Overrules Chevron Doctrine, Imperiling an Array of Federal Rules
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
It is the point. Congress does little anymore. Playing political games is all they do.
The voters get what they deserve.
But at least Congress can't blame out-of-control regulators anymore.
Indeed that’s sorta the real point. We want people to be politically accountable for choices made, or not made.
"Accountable"?
The only folks holding our so-called representatives accountable are their major donors.
And who are these major donors? For the most part, they are corporations who don't want to have to conform to regulations that protect health, the environment, human rights, truth in advertising or much else that might interfere with profits.
There's a word for this: "Oligarchy"
Anyone that thinks Congress actually reads the bills they sign off needs to take a crazy pill.
What is the point? The point of making a political point?...or the point of actually governing
The only freedom provided with this ruling is placing profit over health, safety, etc.
The corporate class is the only beneficiary of the Roberts court.
The point is that there is going to be a lot of short term pain until voters demand better than electing people that will piss off the other side the most
These aren't your grandparent's agencies anymore. A few experts for sure, but mostly filled with political appointees eager to push whatever political agenda is the panic-du- jour.
This wholeheartedly shifted power back to Congress... take notice of who is the most outraged.
And "experts"... laughable. They did a bang up job during COVID.
This wholeheartedly shifted power back to Congress... take notice of who is the most outraged.
And "experts"... laughable. They did a bang up job during COVID.
ALEC has produced model bills on a broad range of issues, such as reducing regulation and individual and corporate taxation, combating illegal immigration, loosening environmental regulations, tightening voter identification rules, weakening labor unions, and opposing gun control.[9][10][11][12] Some of these bills dominate legislative agendas in states such as Arizona, Wisconsin, Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Maine.[13] Approximately 200 model bills become law each year.[9][14] ALEC also serves as a networking tool among certain state legislators, allowing them to research conservative policies implemented in other states.[11] Many ALEC legislators say the organization converts campaign rhetoric and nascent policy ideas into legislative language.[6]
ALEC's activities, while legal,[15] received public scrutiny after news reports in 2012 from outlets such as The New York Times and Bloomberg Businessweek described ALEC as an organization that gave corporate interests outsized influence.[9][10] Resulting public pressure led to a number of legislators and corporations withdrawing from the organization. In 2022, however, Insider reported that a political commentator addressing the July policy summit of ALEC stated that if the objective of the conservative constitutional convention movement that "is gaining momentum" largely out of public view is successful in its effort to rewrite the constitution, the USA will become the "conservative nation" ALEC has been working toward.[16]
American Legislative Exchange Council - Wikipedia
So Congress and the Courts are filed with experts who are better suited to provide guidance across a wide range of challenges? With a level of specificity that SCOTUS now demands?
I’m sure COVID would have gone swimmingly under the leadership of Mitch McConnell and Sam Alito.
Case in point: air pollutant “expert” Neil Gorsuch in an opinion the day before the Chevron decision was released.
Last edited:
FDA can still say “red dye 40” is banned, yes?
But, now Fruit Loops can challenge them in court, whereas before they were told to pound sand.
Agencies shouldn’t have so much power imo
But, now Fruit Loops can challenge them in court, whereas before they were told to pound sand.
Agencies shouldn’t have so much power imo
then why vote? that's your way of making people accountable. and that's what political accountability means.
Just re-read decision and concurring and dissenting. I'm about to bang my head against the wall trying to figure out what the Court is thinking.
Wait, we aren’t doing that already? Food is GMO/Fake/bugs, water pipes and water shit and contamination and spraying chemicals in the air to alter weather. Good one bro I see what you did
Civics 101, my man....
Congress writes the laws, the president approves the laws, and the courts interpret the laws.
There's nothing about rule-making agencies running with some half-baked law and writing a bunch of rules that congress didn't intend for them to write.
For reference, see the shitshow surrounding the EEOC's abortion provisions under the mostly bipartisan Pregnant Worker's Fairness Act.
No republican lawmaker would have voted for what the EEOC did with this law. But the EEOC wrote it into the final rules anyway.
OK. I'll try to remember you don't actually value democracy, and holding elected officials accountable. You'd rather have self serving bureaucrats making rules and regulations and not being accountable. The Supreme Court just tried to give democracy back to the people.
Don't talk down to me about civics. I'm pointing out that Congress has and is continuing to fail in their jobs.
SCOTUS is overcompensating.
No argument that Congress is failing.
The Executive Branch has been compensating by extrapolating the vague parts of laws so they can be enforced - which is its job.
SCOTUS isn't overcompensating for Congress's failings. Instead, it is trying to prevent the Executive Branch from doing its job.
Yes, it can be perceived in various ways. I'm smart enough to know that I'm not that smart. But my attraction to the law was naive I guess.
What surprises me about these Court Rulings that cripple the Executive Branch is that, at the same time, the Project 2025 folks and other Rs are pushing (once again) the notion of the unitary executive - which would consolidate and strengthen the Executive.
Are they on different pages?
Are they on different pages?
You tell me...I'm not a supporter of January 6th events...not saying you are...but I have a strong disconnect with a portion of America
Jimmy I won’t dispute that congress doesn’t do much. But the remedy for that is not to throw up your hands and let the executive do what they want, and particularly in a time when there is polarization rather than moderation and consensus.
@Jimmy McGill - was Chevron a fix for a failing of congress to pass specific laws? Or to allow agencies to be more nimble and reactive/proactive?
I truly would like to be an optimist and think this is SCOTUS telling them to do their jobs. But it is insane to believe that we can trust them. All they do is run for re-election.
Agencies have standards
SCOTUS does not
Am I wrong in my (basic) understanding above:
Agency now doesn’t have unrivaled authority? They can be challenged, but still make “rules”?
What level hears objections to the rules? Only scotus, or local federal?
Yup. Count me in Finance. I mean: who better to regulate us than then judiciary.
Corporate lobbyists eye new lawsuits after Supreme Court limits federal power
Powerful opponents of federal regulation — in climate, finance, health, labor and technology — are already planning how to use the ruling for their advantage.Mere hours after the Supreme Court sharply curbed the power of federal agencies, conservatives and corporate lobbyists began plotting how to harness the favorable ruling in a redoubled quest to whittle down climate, finance, health, labor and technology regulations in Washington.
The early strategizing underscored the magnitude of the justices’ landmark decision, which rattled the nation’s capital and now appears poised to touch off years of lawsuits that could redefine the U.S. government’s role in modern American life.
more here
That's the spin from the right but it's dead wrong
This didn't give democracy back to the people. This sacrificed democracy to corporate power.
Until now, corporations wielded considerable control over Congress but with more liberal administrations and a large, experienced bureaucracy, the protections society needs could still be enforced.
With conservative administrations, corporations could often install corporate shills to sabotage the EPA and other guardian agencies, so enforcement dwindled, and depended on the work ethic of lower-ranked public employees.
So . . . fairly strong control over Congress, but only intermittent control over the Executive. Until now.
With these new rulings from the (now-corporate-controlled Court), even the intermittent periods of democratic protections are destined to fade.
Note, too, that Project 2025 projects a decimation of the bureaucracy, to be replaced at the top by political appointees, and elsewhere to be fired.
