VOSS Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Quote Members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed inclined on Wednesday to limit or even overturn a key precedent that has empowered executive agencies, threatening regulations in countless areas, including the environment, health care and consumer safety. Each side warned of devastating consequences should it lose, underscoring how the court’s decision in a highly technical case could reverberate across wide swaths of American life. Judging from questions in two hard-fought arguments that lasted a total of more than three and a half hours, the foundational doctrine of administrative law called Chevron deference appeared to be in peril. The doctrine takes its name from a 1984 decision, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the most cited cases in American law. Under it, judges must defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. In close cases, and there are many, the views of the agency take priority even if courts might have ruled differently. Supporters of the doctrine say it allows specialized agencies to fill in gaps in ambiguous statutes to establish uniform rules in their areas of expertise, a practice they say was contemplated by Congress. Its opponents, including business groups hostile to what they see as overregulation, counter that it is the role of courts, not executive branch officials, to determine the meanings of statutes. They also say that agencies’ interpretations can change with new administrations and put a thumb on the scale in favor of the government even when it is a party to the case. Overruling the precedent, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the justices, would be an “unwarranted shock to the legal system.” But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh responded that there were in fact “shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in, whether it’s communications law or securities law or competition law or environmental law.” The court’s three liberal members, by contrast, said agencies were often in a better position than courts to interpret ambiguous statutes in their areas of expertise. “Agencies know things that courts do not,” Justice Elena Kagan said, “and that’s the basis of Chevron.” She added that discarding the decision would be a strikingly disruptive move, as there have been 70 Supreme Court decisions relying on Chevron, along with 17,000 in the lower courts. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Congress had given some policy choices to the agencies. “And my concern,” she said, “is that if we take away something like Chevron, the court will then suddenly become a policymaker.” The fate of Chevron could turn on the votes of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, members of the court’s conservative wing whose questions were not uniformly hostile to the doctrine. Wednesday’s argument featured a host of hypothetical questions. Justice Kagan asked who should decide, for instance, whether a product is a drug or a dietary supplement. The answer, she suggested, was an expert agency. “It’s best to defer to people who do know, who have had long experience on the ground, who have seen a thousand of these kinds of situations,” she said. “And, you know, judges should know what they don’t know.” Justice Kagan imagined a new statute addressing artificial intelligence, one that would inevitably have gaps and ambiguities. “Congress can hardly see a week in the future with respect to this subject, let alone a year or a decade in the future,” she said, adding, “Congress knows that this court and lower courts are not competent with respect to deciding all the questions about A.I. that are going to come up in the future.” The justices were also concerned about whether a decision overturning the decision would give rise to countless challenges to earlier rulings under the doctrine. “Isn’t the door then open for litigants to come back?” Justice Barrett asked, adding, “Isn’t it inviting a flood of litigation?” The arguments drew a few dozen demonstrators outside the court, despite the winter chill. Those gathered opposed the court overruling the Chevron doctrine. Source
truthteller Posted January 19 Posted January 19 (edited) i dont believe in people (especially walking corpses) with the superior rights to rule over others. Edited January 19 by truthteller
Vixen Eyes Posted January 19 Posted January 19 im planning on moving to Denmark eventually (far in the future atp) anyway
dawnettakins Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Meanwhile Dems and Joe Biden will do absolutely nothing about it, but have no problem fearmongering and campaigning on it for their own coffers!
qurl Posted January 19 Posted January 19 2 hours ago, dawnettakins said: Meanwhile Dems and Joe Biden will do absolutely nothing about it, but have no problem fearmongering and campaigning on it for their own coffers! what can they do ? legit asking this is the problem that i have bc i am so beyond disappointed in joe and the democrats , but even if he tried an executive order to add more justices to the courts , what happens when a powerful conservative legislative apparatus (Heritage foundation) sues and the case of adding more justices gets denied by the conservative majority ?
beautiful player Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Joe's fault! This could have been prevented if we voted Trump to office in 2020. 1
Eat The Acid Posted January 19 Posted January 19 2 hours ago, qurl said: what can they do ? legit asking this is the problem that i have bc i am so beyond disappointed in joe and the democrats , but even if he tried an executive order to add more justices to the courts , what happens when a powerful conservative legislative apparatus (Heritage foundation) sues and the case of adding more justices gets denied by the conservative majority ? He could add more justices. 7 - 9. Turning the tide to a more liberal Supreme Court. He could attempt to give term limited to judges so that courts don’t stay forever conservative or liberal. Instead he continues to coast by and fear monger on “well if you vote Trump, it’ll get worse” - instead of running on how it can get better and how he’s going to make sure it does! 2
qwerty1199 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 41 minutes ago, Eat The Acid said: He could add more justices. 7 - 9. Turning the tide to a more liberal Supreme Court. He could attempt to give term limited to judges so that courts don’t stay forever conservative or liberal. Instead he continues to coast by and fear monger on “well if you vote Trump, it’ll get worse” - instead of running on how it can get better and how he’s going to make sure it does! Can’t term limit without amending the constitution which is virtually impossible in the US today. can’t add justices without senate approval and they won’t do it. 1
dawnettakins Posted January 19 Posted January 19 10 hours ago, qurl said: what can they do ? legit asking this is the problem that i have bc i am so beyond disappointed in joe and the democrats , but even if he tried an executive order to add more justices to the courts , what happens when a powerful conservative legislative apparatus (Heritage foundation) sues and the case of adding more justices gets denied by the conservative majority ? The Senate has the authority to add more justices. The Supreme Court wouldn't get to deny or have a say in that. But it's really asking too much because Dems would never do that. They HATE using their power, especially if it means giving their voters what they want. And they'll never get rid of the filibuster because they're weak af, and without that I don't think they could add more justices with a simple majority. Not to mention, even if Dem leadership was actually competent, there are many Democratic Senators that are basically Republicans in disguises, and would kill that effort in a heartbeat if they tried to stack the court with more liberal justices.
besaid Posted January 21 Posted January 21 On 1/19/2024 at 11:33 AM, dawnettakins said: The Senate has the authority to add more justices. The Supreme Court wouldn't get to deny or have a say in that. But it's really asking too much because Dems would never do that. They HATE using their power, especially if it means giving their voters what they want. And they'll never get rid of the filibuster because they're weak af, and without that I don't think they could add more justices with a simple majority. Not to mention, even if Dem leadership was actually competent, there are many Democratic Senators that are basically Republicans in disguises, and would kill that effort in a heartbeat if they tried to stack the court with more liberal justices. Getting rid of the filibuster right as the R's are poised to take over the senate in 10 months ... rolling out the red carpet for them and taking all the heat for it. Oh yea, and court packing. I'm sure that'll go over beautifully for the guy running on a pro-Democracy platform.
Communion Posted January 21 Posted January 21 47 minutes ago, besaid said: Getting rid of the filibuster right as the R's are poised to take over the senate in 10 months ... rolling out the red carpet for them and taking all the heat for it. Oh yea, and court packing. I'm sure that'll go over beautifully for the guy running on a pro-Democracy platform. Who got temporarily banned that they're now back under this account? IP check please!
spree Posted January 22 Posted January 22 aren't Dems poised to take control of the House and Senate?
Recommended Posts