Chevron Deference Overruled

[mysfit]

What an absolute complete fuck up of a ruling and shouldn't this be on the politics board? I think we can all agree that whatever "independent and apolotical" designation the Judicial branch and the Roberts SC (hello citizens united) it has become painfully and an historically decisive change that the SC is both political and in the pockets of the wealthy? Big business. Etc?

I have to say that as of now, I'm done. I am just done with the politics. I am done with the Judicial system. I am done with Federal and State governments officials. I am especially done with the utter farce the office of President of the United States has become. The fucking joke election for that position has become and the lack of any meaningful candidates for that joke of a position has become.

 

I am done with it. I'm going to spend my time and energy on things that will enrich me rather than drain and depress me.my health is hitting some major hurdles. The part of me that could handle it all is so broken.

And I just can't. I'm done with these topics and concerns.

[AlpineSummer]

On 6/30/2024 at 5:08 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

O man, I LOVE seeing people break down the “major questions doctrine” (lol) with a straight face. 

You should elaborate with specifics.  

[SalinasSpartan]

On 6/30/2024 at 4:19 PM, AlpineSummer said:

You should elaborate with specifics.  

So, you want ME to “elaborate with specifics” on a notoriously vague and arbitrary rule SCOTUS pulled out of its ass a few years ago? There are a few people in robes that need to elaborate on the rule first, I’m afraid. 

[AlpineSummer]

On 6/30/2024 at 6:04 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

So, you want ME to “elaborate with specifics” on a notoriously vague and arbitrary rule SCOTUS pulled out of its ass a few years ago? There are a few people in robes that need to elaborate on the rule first, I’m afraid. 

 The MQD has roots, is a separation of powers matter, and much has been written on it.  Very much.  I think you should try for more than a sound bite.  

[happycamper]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:50 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

I went to law school and actually read Marbury v Madison.  I took and past 3 separate bar exams.  I drafted, interpreted, argued, litigated and provided public comment on 100s if not thousands of agency rules.  I’ve witnessed some agencies craft rules that appear to have nothing to do with the statutory authority under which they adopted such rules for what appears to be reasons of political or personal gain.  
 

Does this not qualify me to have such an opinion? 
 

 

about engineering, air pollution, mutagenic compounds? 

no dawg. it doesn't. 

this cure is going to be a lot rougher than the disease you dislike. i mean... look at the difference between the state engineer's office in wyoming and the shitshow that is colorado's water court. 

[AlpineSummer]

On 6/30/2024 at 5:14 PM, mysfit said:

What an absolute complete fuck up of a ruling and shouldn't this be on the politics board? I think we can all agree that whatever "independent and apolotical" designation the Judicial branch and the Roberts SC (hello citizens united) it has become painfully and an historically decisive change that the SC is both political and in the pockets of the wealthy? Big business. Etc? ....

Not everyone has figured out the two sides in OT.  Eventually. 

Just on this case, Loper, and administrative law -- there's a lot of stuff packed in.   I don't think the scare lines are reality.   As posited earlier, regulatory agencies will still get reference.  Probably reverts to an earlier standard well before Chevron (from EastV).  There's a lot more to this matter.  

[SalinasSpartan]

On 6/30/2024 at 5:50 PM, AlpineSummer said:

 The MQD has roots, is a separation of powers matter, and much has been written on it.  Very much.  I think you should try for more than a sound bite.  

I think you should not try to assume so much about what an anonymous person does or does not know based on what they post on a message board.

[gordonsolie]

On 6/30/2024 at 10:43 PM, AlpineSummer said:

Not everyone has figured out the two sides in OT.  Eventually. 

Just on this case, Loper, and administrative law -- there's a lot of stuff packed in.   I don't think the scare lines are reality.   As posited earlier, regulatory agencies will still get reference.  Probably reverts to an earlier standard well before Chevron (from EastV).  There's a lot more to this matter.  

Skidmore isn’t a bad standard either…it came out of the Roosevelt-friendly rulings of the 40s, so it’s hardly some sort of gilded age shackle that the fear mongers want to paint it as. 

EDIT: It actually came from one of the more consequential rulings of that time period, involving OT pay through the FLSA. (Swift)

[AlpineSummer]

On 7/1/2024 at 7:20 AM, East Village Poltergeist said:

Skidmore isn’t a bad standard either…it came out of the Roosevelt-friendly rulings of the 40s, so it’s hardly some sort of gilded age shackle that the fear mongers want to paint it as. 
 

You change the rules, you change incentives, you change behavior.  Business world happy about Loper as post.

I wasn't familiar w/the term of Skidmore, but yes it looks like it fits into the Court's post-progressive shift from that era.   

The left is definitely overdoing the fear thing. Saw an old friend post frantically on Snyder. Then the Grants Pass homeless street case, and Loper all come in the context of the political environment.  Like that REM song. 

[OrediggerPoke]

Skidmore makes a lot of sense.  The last time I read that case was in law school the same day we read Chevron.  That was a long time ago.  
 

But why we ever departed from Skidmore I don’t know.  In my view it basically says that the agency’s interpretation can be admitted as persuasive evidence of what a given statute means but ultimately it is within the court’s purview to rule.  
 

The reason I like Skidmore is that we can have one judicial hearing, the agency can introduce the evidence it has to the meaning of a statute and then the court can issue a decision that will then be binding on the agency so that the agency isn’t then completely changing the same rule just because we get a new administration.  This should allow for certainty and finality…2 cornerstones to reducing investment risk.  

[WYO1016]

Chiming in on this as I work in a state regulatory agency. This really isn't going to change much about how we go about things, but this ruling does mean that we're going to CONSTANTLY be in litigation. Health insurance rules and regulations change all the time. This is going to bog down the process significantly. Our agency is going to have to hire another attorney just to be in court all the time.

[OrediggerPoke]

On 7/1/2024 at 9:54 AM, WYO1016 said:

Chiming in on this as I work in a state regulatory agency. This really isn't going to change much about how we go about things, but this ruling does mean that we're going to CONSTANTLY be in litigation. Health insurance rules and regulations change all the time. This is going to bog down the process significantly. Our agency is going to have to hire another attorney just to be in court all the time.

It actually doesn’t mean that. Loper only applies to federal laws and federal courts.  States are free to adopt/not adopt Loper as part of their individual Administrative Procedure Act analysis.  Wyoming precedent pretty clearly adopted a Chevron type analysis historically; it will be interesting if the courts or the legislature (more likely) change it.  

[WYO1016]

On 7/1/2024 at 9:59 AM, OrediggerPoke said:

It actually doesn’t mean that. Loper only applies to federal laws and federal courts.  States are free to adopt/not adopt Loper as part of their individual Administrative Procedure Act analysis.  Wyoming precedent pretty clearly adopted a Chevron type analysis historically; it will be interesting if the courts or the legislature (more likely) change it.  

Our staff attorney is pretty convinced that it will be applied on a state level, too. We just got done having a conversation about it.

[OrediggerPoke]

On 7/1/2024 at 10:09 AM, WYO1016 said:

Our staff attorney is pretty convinced that it will be applied on a state level, too. We just got done having a conversation about it.

Interesting.  No one will really know until a case makes its way to the Wyoming Supreme Court.  Historically, the Wyoming Supreme Court has stayed pretty consistent with its precedent.  But maybe the Court will look at it and say our historical analysis was based on Chevron and therefore we will depart from it too.  
 

But Wyoming has been more insulated from the problem that Chevron created which was new administrations coming in and rules completely flip flopping.  

[Orange]

On 6/30/2024 at 7:43 PM, AlpineSummer said:

Not everyone has figured out the two sides in OT.  Eventually. 

Just on this case, Loper, and administrative law -- there's a lot of stuff packed in.   I don't think the scare lines are reality.   As posited earlier, regulatory agencies will still get reference.  Probably reverts to an earlier standard well before Chevron (from EastV).  There's a lot more to this matter.  

You guys will be saying “scare line” even while evacuating your families as Boise or some other such major city is gutted by wildfire because worldwide temps have increased 4°C

[Orange]

On 7/1/2024 at 8:54 AM, OrediggerPoke said:

Skidmore makes a lot of sense.  The last time I read that case was in law school the same day we read Chevron.  That was a long time ago.  
 

But why we ever departed from Skidmore I don’t know.  In my view it basically says that the agency’s interpretation can be admitted as persuasive evidence of what a given statute means but ultimately it is within the court’s purview to rule.  
 

The reason I like Skidmore is that we can have one judicial hearing, the agency can introduce the evidence it has to the meaning of a statute and then the court can issue a decision that will then be binding on the agency so that the agency isn’t then completely changing the same rule just because we get a new administration.  This should allow for certainty and finality…2 cornerstones to reducing investment risk.  

Right, because again, “investment risk” is the primary/only matter that should be considered when deciding how to run a government. lol

[Bison]

On 7/1/2024 at 9:54 AM, WYO1016 said:

Chiming in on this as I work in a state regulatory agency. This really isn't going to change much about how we go about things, but this ruling does mean that we're going to CONSTANTLY be in litigation. Health insurance rules and regulations change all the time. This is going to bog down the process significantly. Our agency is going to have to hire another attorney just to be in court all the time.

I work in the Fed government so I'm curious to see how this impacts my agency which works with Chevron.

[gordonsolie]

On 7/1/2024 at 2:05 PM, Orange said:

You guys will be saying “scare line” even while evacuating your families as Boise or some other such major city is gutted by wildfire because worldwide temps have increased 4°C

Lulz at the hyperbole of the Earth boiling soon because of a return to a New Deal precedent. 

[OrediggerPoke]

On 7/1/2024 at 12:07 PM, Orange said:

Right, because again, “investment risk” is the primary/only matter that should be considered when deciding how to run a government. lol

You do realize that decarbonization, if that is a goal, would require massive investment to the level this country has pretty much never seen?

 

You do realize that to achieve even a moderate reduction in carbon emissions, whether it be with renewables, hydrogen generation of nuclear generation, or more likely a hybrid of all of them, will require massive investments and development in mining (critical minerals, rare earths and uranium fuel sources), electric and pipeline transmission infrastructure, sequestration deployment along with massive investment in the energy generation source?

The relatively low risk investment is the fossil fuel.  That infrastructure largely already exists.  

[AlpineSummer]

Sometimes certain posts stray outside the wide bounds of legit authentic takes into caricature.  There are clues.