Supreme Court Watch: Chevron Doctrine

[JoeB131]

So, do you believe that every gov't agency should have the power to do whatever they want according to their politics? And when challenged or sued in court, the agency can claim that we thought this ambiguous authorizes what we're doing and we have the final say and the courts should defer to us.

Do you understand the ideal of the rule of law rather than the rule of men? The Chevron Doctrine advances the power of unelected people over the rest of us. You strike me as a person who is fine with that as long as those unelected people are democrats, but I'm guessing you'd have a big problem if those people were republicans. And that mkes you a hypocrite.

are you fucking retarded?

Congress has the authority to yank back a bureaucracy that oversteps its bounds. We saw that with the IRS and Lois Lerner, who even though she was perfectly right in how she was applying the law, Congress still slapped her back and Obama was kind of feckless in defending her.

So, no, I don't worry about the experts at agencies exceeding their authority.

I worry about politicians who are fuck all ignorant about science making decisions based on popular opinion and not hard facts.

This is why the Chinese are beating us. They have a technocracy. Nobody is in the People's Congress who isn't an expert in his field.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No, you fucking moron, THE CONSTITUTION gives them that power.

WTF, you fucking IDIOT.
WHO do you think.......................... WROTE the constitution?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The States gave the power to the Congress- that's what the Constitution does. Or to put it another way, the States established the Congress for that purpose.

The SCOTUS has been looking for a vehicle to address Chevron for several years now, this one fit their needs.

The point is to return to something closer to the original intent of the Framers- i.e. to put the burden of making laws back on the elected representatives who can (in theory) be held accountable for the laws they pass.

The business of writing ambiguous laws, and relying on the agencies to write the regulations that we live by is not what the Constitution imagines. When the agencies are giving free reign there is no accountability.

Well then, the elected person who appointed that should be held accountable (LOL)
Just like heads of any agency are brought before congress for actions, their underlings, enacted.

So this puts the burden back where it belongs, and what it will likely mean is that regulations that have an economic impact over a certain threshold will have to be approved by the Congress.

It will be a miracle, if a congressperson will even recognize a rogue regulation added into a statute.
They don't even read their own.

This is a good decision because the agencies tend to run amok at times with their interpretations, and it puts the onus back on the Congress to approve these sweeping interpretations.

It will be a cluster fuck.

 

[AMart]

 

[AMart]