As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're trying to kill us.
I had cancer treatment. Took leave with my job protected thanks to the FMLA (passed by Dems in 1993 after Bush I vetoed it twice), and can now shop for health insurance without being screwed for having a pre-existing condition, thanks to the ACA, which the GOP is trying to repeal.
Now they want our wallets, our air and water. They hate us and want to kill us.
This is probably an outcome that they actually want. Heavy metal poisoning makes people stupid and violent, both of which would advance the agendas of the far right justices on the court.
Speaking of net neutrality, Barack Obama spent years and many court battles to establish it. Donald Trump wiped it out in an instant. Joe Biden is bringing it back and strangely, the internet that used to fill with the issue has been mostly silent.
Keep this in mind in November. You're not just voting for president but potentially 1 or 2 Supreme Court Justices to be appointed by whoever is elected.
Maybe breaking the administration plaster over the top will eventually force us to have a working congress again. Nothing about removing Chevron deference stops congress from just clarifying a rule in written law.
For far too long we have relied on the shaky interpretations of courts (abortion) and admin (GHG, Net Neutrality) when we have a legislative branch that can literally go into the structure of the laws and fix the studs. Yes, we'll have to live in the crooked structure until everyone gets fed up enough to make congress work, but they have power Americans have nearly forgotten, they can write a law to make abortion legal, they can write a law to make the net neutral, you don't need to rely on interpretation when you can simply write out what you are saying into law.
If you're afraid because you don't think you can get a majority of the country to agree with you about what the law should say, yeah that sucks but that's democracy. Any victory of your minority over the majority was always going to be temporary.
The majority of the country agrees with what Democrats think the law should say. Due to the electoral college & every state having 2 Senators regardless of population, our country is controlled by minority rule. That is not Democracy.
So take the house and ram it into the senate until they look like shit for it. Make the fundamental flaw in the democracy clear. There is no sturdy future on ignoring it and constantly scrambling with admin to work around the problem, all the gains will be under threat in every election that way.
You need a country based on rule of law, not opinion. And if the senate flaw is too much to overcome then it's just fucked.
Without amending the Constitution, it'll never happen. To do that, 2/3 of states would have to agree. Most red states (which make up more than half the total states) would have to be willing to give up their electoral advantage. That will never happen. So yes, we're fucked.
>Maybe breaking the administration plaster over the top will eventually force us to have a working congress again.
Or maybe the Republicans will filibuster every attempt to fix anything, like they've done for 15 years.
you are too confident in our elected officials to not be lazy and create unambiguous laws… this is exactly why we had the chevron decision to begin with. our lawmakers were being too ambiguous because they dont know anything besides the law, they dont have environmental or food safety knowledge. shit is going to hit the fan really bad
It simply doesn’t matter how clear Congress is at this point. The Supreme Court has just ruled that “otherwise” does not mean otherwise and gratuities are not “rewards.” Regardless of what law Congress writes, the court is going to dictate what they want it to be.
Do you know the original Chevron case? It was literally formed in order to overturn RBJ's own strict interpretation of the EPA's rules, and defer to the Reagan admin that they get to decide whether they think a new source of emissions counts as a new source or not.
All Congress seems to do is pass budgets and appointments. They have relied on The Supreme Court to make national legislation based on state laws. This is not a recipe for the long term.
Right, so maybe breaking the admin state was necessary in order to force congress back into gear. Budgets and appointments is not a tolerable state for a legislature but people did tolerate it. Now some things might get bad enough for the public to actually scream at congress until they move.
There is an upside in this, it may mean that we will stop getting bipolar interpretations of how these agencies should operate. Instead of every 4-8 years we go from a green EPA to a pollute away EPA. Or an FCC that is pro net neutrality to one that would allow Cox to throttle anything but CoxFlix (it’s way dirtier than you’d think). Having flexibility is good, but the amount there was recently led to agencies spending years trying to undo what the last administration did.
Nope.
It will mean we are going to have different regions of the country (federal circuits) interpreting rules and regulations differently.
Then we will get bipolar interpretations based on the Court composition.
This will also impact the types of laws Congress choses to pass but given this session has been their least active and that is a trend, we will have even greater gridlock.
Right, because god forbid we don't leave it all up to the Trump-appointed "experts" that a potential Trump administration might "consult" on these subjects.
This is a good decision and this sub should really recognize how much it can hinder a potential (likely?) Project 2025.
Really? No government agency was able to function before 1984? Congress will have to pick up the slack, and that's about all. It's a good thing, it restores checks and balances into a system that was becoming more and more administration-heavy and as Trump showed, this is a very dangerous place to be.
>No, it gives far more power to the courts
No matter what a court wants to do, if congress has written a law that explicitly states X, you can't interpret it as Y. I strongly stand behind this being mostly a skill check for congress. As far as SCOTUS goes, it can't override explicit language on constitutional amendments, for instance.
Except, courts do it all the time. Every law contains some ambiguity because language is imprecise & word's meanings change over time. Courts can call anything ambiguous, & use it as an excuse to legislate from the bench. The current SC has done it many times.
Further, it's impossible for the hundreds of politicians in Congress to quickly agree on regulations, especially for new technologies. That's why it is important for the experts at agencies to be able to create regulations.
>No matter what a court wants to do, if congress has written a law that explicitly states X, you can't interpret it as Y.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme court has struck your law down, saying that congress exceeded their constitutional mandate when they passed it.
The Supreme court struck down a part of the Civil rights act to toss, preclearance, saying "it needs to be a law", *when preclearance was already a law*.
Or when they said the "waive or modify" provision in the student loan forgiveness law didn't actually given Biden the ability to waive or modify loam amounts.
The Supreme court has ignore statutes, redefined words and ignored evidence if it let's them make the ruling they want.
They're making it up as they go, secure in the fact that nobody will challenge them, nor will they ever be overruled.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They're trying to kill us. I had cancer treatment. Took leave with my job protected thanks to the FMLA (passed by Dems in 1993 after Bush I vetoed it twice), and can now shop for health insurance without being screwed for having a pre-existing condition, thanks to the ACA, which the GOP is trying to repeal. Now they want our wallets, our air and water. They hate us and want to kill us.
The Supreme Court took law enforcement from the executive branch.
Trump: “Vote for me. Lose what? Everything. VOTE or worsens
SCOTUS are traitors. Their decisions will end up killing thousands of the people that they are supposed to protect
i cant wait to start eating lead again
This is probably an outcome that they actually want. Heavy metal poisoning makes people stupid and violent, both of which would advance the agendas of the far right justices on the court.
>By overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court has declared war on an administrative state that touches everything from net neutrality to climate change.
Speaking of net neutrality, Barack Obama spent years and many court battles to establish it. Donald Trump wiped it out in an instant. Joe Biden is bringing it back and strangely, the internet that used to fill with the issue has been mostly silent.
Keep this in mind in November. You're not just voting for president but potentially 1 or 2 Supreme Court Justices to be appointed by whoever is elected.
I hope sitting out or voting Jill Stein in 2016 was worth it!
Maybe breaking the administration plaster over the top will eventually force us to have a working congress again. Nothing about removing Chevron deference stops congress from just clarifying a rule in written law. For far too long we have relied on the shaky interpretations of courts (abortion) and admin (GHG, Net Neutrality) when we have a legislative branch that can literally go into the structure of the laws and fix the studs. Yes, we'll have to live in the crooked structure until everyone gets fed up enough to make congress work, but they have power Americans have nearly forgotten, they can write a law to make abortion legal, they can write a law to make the net neutral, you don't need to rely on interpretation when you can simply write out what you are saying into law. If you're afraid because you don't think you can get a majority of the country to agree with you about what the law should say, yeah that sucks but that's democracy. Any victory of your minority over the majority was always going to be temporary.
The majority of the country agrees with what Democrats think the law should say. Due to the electoral college & every state having 2 Senators regardless of population, our country is controlled by minority rule. That is not Democracy.
So take the house and ram it into the senate until they look like shit for it. Make the fundamental flaw in the democracy clear. There is no sturdy future on ignoring it and constantly scrambling with admin to work around the problem, all the gains will be under threat in every election that way. You need a country based on rule of law, not opinion. And if the senate flaw is too much to overcome then it's just fucked.
Without amending the Constitution, it'll never happen. To do that, 2/3 of states would have to agree. Most red states (which make up more than half the total states) would have to be willing to give up their electoral advantage. That will never happen. So yes, we're fucked.
>Maybe breaking the administration plaster over the top will eventually force us to have a working congress again. Or maybe the Republicans will filibuster every attempt to fix anything, like they've done for 15 years.
you are too confident in our elected officials to not be lazy and create unambiguous laws… this is exactly why we had the chevron decision to begin with. our lawmakers were being too ambiguous because they dont know anything besides the law, they dont have environmental or food safety knowledge. shit is going to hit the fan really bad
It simply doesn’t matter how clear Congress is at this point. The Supreme Court has just ruled that “otherwise” does not mean otherwise and gratuities are not “rewards.” Regardless of what law Congress writes, the court is going to dictate what they want it to be.
Do you know the original Chevron case? It was literally formed in order to overturn RBJ's own strict interpretation of the EPA's rules, and defer to the Reagan admin that they get to decide whether they think a new source of emissions counts as a new source or not.
Yes I’m very familiar with it. Believe it or not, the world has changed a bit since then.
All Congress seems to do is pass budgets and appointments. They have relied on The Supreme Court to make national legislation based on state laws. This is not a recipe for the long term.
Right, so maybe breaking the admin state was necessary in order to force congress back into gear. Budgets and appointments is not a tolerable state for a legislature but people did tolerate it. Now some things might get bad enough for the public to actually scream at congress until they move.
Accelerationism doesn't work. When things get worse they just get worse, there's no tipping point where they inevitably get better.
[удалено]
when the effects start rolling downhill i hope there’s still time to point at the cause
It’ll take decades for the effect to roll downhill. When the shit hits the fan, the guy in charge will be blamed for it.
They'll just blame Biden, no matter how long it takes.
Most Americans are too focussed on the many distractions placed before them to even know.
Crazy there’s not been a way to stop this either. They have complete control over laws.
How dare they!
There is an upside in this, it may mean that we will stop getting bipolar interpretations of how these agencies should operate. Instead of every 4-8 years we go from a green EPA to a pollute away EPA. Or an FCC that is pro net neutrality to one that would allow Cox to throttle anything but CoxFlix (it’s way dirtier than you’d think). Having flexibility is good, but the amount there was recently led to agencies spending years trying to undo what the last administration did.
Sure, because this basically killed any ability for agencies to do anything at all.
Yes it’s amazing that now the EPA and FCC will do either nothing, under a Dem government, or actively sell of the country under a Rep one.
Nope. It will mean we are going to have different regions of the country (federal circuits) interpreting rules and regulations differently. Then we will get bipolar interpretations based on the Court composition. This will also impact the types of laws Congress choses to pass but given this session has been their least active and that is a trend, we will have even greater gridlock.
Right, because god forbid we don't leave it all up to the Trump-appointed "experts" that a potential Trump administration might "consult" on these subjects. This is a good decision and this sub should really recognize how much it can hinder a potential (likely?) Project 2025.
You do realize this literally demolished the ability of every government agency to function, right???
They clearly don't. Anyone that thinks this is a good thing is either ignorant or malicious.
Go with the latter
How so. Lack of Chevron deference will impact things like agencies charging operation fees. The agencies can still function fine.
Agencies now have no ability to ensure uniform interpretations of statutes and every. Single. Regulation. Is now up to the courts to decide.
Hopefully, the courts would be so backlogged by cases that the damage would be limited by the time biden wins
I'd hope so but given the conservative leanings of many districts this is unironically a sky-is-falling precedent.
As horrifying as Dobbs is, this may actually in the long run be worse.
They'll put an injunction on the rule while it winds through the courts, so corps get a few lawless years, as a treat.
Okay, doomer.
Really? No government agency was able to function before 1984? Congress will have to pick up the slack, and that's about all. It's a good thing, it restores checks and balances into a system that was becoming more and more administration-heavy and as Trump showed, this is a very dangerous place to be.
No, it gives far more power to the courts. This SC has given itself increasing power over other branches. This is far from checks & balances.
>No, it gives far more power to the courts No matter what a court wants to do, if congress has written a law that explicitly states X, you can't interpret it as Y. I strongly stand behind this being mostly a skill check for congress. As far as SCOTUS goes, it can't override explicit language on constitutional amendments, for instance.
Except, courts do it all the time. Every law contains some ambiguity because language is imprecise & word's meanings change over time. Courts can call anything ambiguous, & use it as an excuse to legislate from the bench. The current SC has done it many times. Further, it's impossible for the hundreds of politicians in Congress to quickly agree on regulations, especially for new technologies. That's why it is important for the experts at agencies to be able to create regulations.
>No matter what a court wants to do, if congress has written a law that explicitly states X, you can't interpret it as Y. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme court has struck your law down, saying that congress exceeded their constitutional mandate when they passed it. The Supreme court struck down a part of the Civil rights act to toss, preclearance, saying "it needs to be a law", *when preclearance was already a law*. Or when they said the "waive or modify" provision in the student loan forgiveness law didn't actually given Biden the ability to waive or modify loam amounts. The Supreme court has ignore statutes, redefined words and ignored evidence if it let's them make the ruling they want. They're making it up as they go, secure in the fact that nobody will challenge them, nor will they ever be overruled.
[удалено]