Supreme Court revisits the Chevron Deference.

[wellwisher]

The US Constitution states that Congress will be in charge of making laws. However, about 40 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Regulatory Agencies; like EPA, who are more specialized, could also make laws and regulations apart from Congress.

One of the most important principles in administrative law, the “Chevron deference” was coined after a landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984). The Chevron deference is referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions. In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.

This is being challenged as Unconstitutional, since the Congress is not longer making the law, but the vast majority of law is being created by those who were never specifically allowed to make laws in the Constitution.

The Constitution put Congress in charge of law making, thereby making those who make popular and/or unpopular laws, accountable to the people via elections. The Regulatory state is not elected, but appointed. Therefore, law making is longer accountable to the people. These regulators can linger in government an entire career; 30 years, and not be accountable to the people during a half dozen election cycles. They are put above the Constitution and now are being used by elected officials, to buffer the elected officials, from the consequences of decisions, that could backfire at election time, if they were still accountable.

For example, the various agencies connected to illegal immigration are not composed of elected officials. They are doing the bidding of the DNC and the Democrats; same philosophy. But since no Democrats has his or her name on any law, the DNC gets what they want, while being able to deny any connection to what is going on. Come election time, they can act like innocent by standers and blame someone else; Trump, since there is no signature on paper that connects them to this law; legal loophole. Now, citizens need to sue an agency, making this very expensive, so very few people can do anything. It appears to be designed to be a lawyer paradise and not conducive to freedom, but a type of monarchy.

If the Supreme Court was to overturn the precedent, members of Congress would have to put their names on all laws and regulations, and not be buffered by the independent players, like Fauci and the CDC, composed of unelected officials, who can be used as scapegoats and then pardoned. During the Russian Collusion Coup, the DN+C, used this with the Intel Agencies as a buffer.

The "Swamp" is connected to this shadow branch of Government. composed of appointed career bureaucrats with unelected regulatory power, that is above the law, and is often continuous from election to election. It is most allied with the Democrat party, who is the party of regulations and rules, and acts as a buffer to all DNC accountability. The FBI was the buffer agency between Obama and Biden, spying on then candidate Trump. Some members took the heat, but nothing happens to the elected officials at top, since the leaders can lie and deny; legal bull crap.

If the Chevron Deference is overturned, expect a quantum drop in regulation until Congress becomes fully accountable. This will cripple the Swamp. It may be a good idea to use that as a transition time, to simplify regulation to the best and simple core principles of all the agencies, and then rebuild, adding accountability clauses such as agency term limits. This will shrink government and lower costs.

However, it will cut into the Lawyer industry, needed to fight the bureaucratic state. Lawyers are needed fight against the Swamp, while also being an unaccountable part of the problem; parasite on a predator.

DEI is a government agency, that is partisan to the Left, and like a independent regulatory cancer needs containing, until Congress is accountable for their actions, based on signature votes, that can be used at election time. No more hiding behind the swamp to pick pocket America.

 

[Heyo]

I suspect that it won't happen. There are too many powerful agencies who wouldn't like to yield their power to Congress.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah, lets intentionally bog down Congress with an incomprehensibly massive work load so they're even less effective. Great idea!
This isn't the 18th Century anymore. Times have changed and there's a reason the functions of the state have evolved to help meet the needs of a changing society that is far more complex than it was a few centuries ago.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I suspect that it won't happen. There are too many powerful agencies who wouldn't like to yield their power to Congress.

The issue is Republicans aren't like you and me when we put on a costume and fantasize about the past. We know it's pretend and make believe when we do it and that we're better off today than living in the past.
Republicans call it "original intentent" amd think it's a swell idea for running the nation, and the current SC is detrimentally conservative.

 

[Heyo]

The issue is Republicans aren't like you and me when we put on a costume and fantasize about the past. We know it's pretend and make believe when we do it and that we're better off today than living in the past.
Republicans call it "original intentent" amd think it's a swell idea for running the nation, and the current SC is detrimentally conservative.

With "powerful agencies" I meant those who can make believable threats, even to a Justice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, lets intentionally bog down Congress with an incomprehensibly massive work load so they're even less effective. Great idea!
This isn't the 18th Century anymore. Times have changed and there's a reason the functions of the state have evolved to help meet the needs of a changing society that is far more complex than it was a few centuries ago.

Yes, let's give unelected administrators
the power to write & enforce legislation.

 

[wellwisher]

Yeah, lets intentionally bog down Congress with an incomprehensibly massive work load so they're even less effective. Great idea!
This isn't the 18th Century anymore. Times have changed and there's a reason the functions of the state have evolved to help meet the needs of a changing society that is far more complex than it was a few centuries ago.

Then how does the average citizen deal with the various Agencies, if the Agencies are not accountable to the citizens, by election or by vote in Congress? How is no checks and balances Constitutional? I understand that many Agencies are experts in each field, and they may be among the best people for the specific job, but where are the checks and balances, since there are also shady people in Agencies; appointments, looking for promotions and willing to run partisan scams and act as buffer to accountability. Obama and Biden spied on Trump in 2016 and only a middle Manager of the FBI Agency, was the fall guy, since Agencies operate beyond control; wink wink and then plausible deniability.

A balance of power needs to be achieved, so we can minimize renegade swamp control, via Agencies, under the presence of unique expertise; CDC pretended to understand COVID via the illusions of censorship. This would require a restructuring of the agencies to make it simpler for Congress. The Supreme Court can make this easier by knocking the Agencies down a notch, and then placed them under the oversight of Congress. This means agency experts can still load the gun, but will need Congress to pull the trigger; sign off. This way we get everyone on record as evidence; good and bad.

Another suggestion is similar to a presidential veto; Congressional line item veto, where proposals by each Agency are presented to committees, and then trimmed down to meet the needs of the people and budget, and not just the Agency's wish list. Trump started this in his first term by requiring two old regulations be removed for each new one created; stay current instead of perpetuate the obsolete to grow the agency without trimming. That way you can reassign people to keep the work force fresh.

As an another example, Biden wants to get rid of gas cooking stoves. He gets an Agency like EPA to make a law that is outside Congress. The citizens have no to say and the elected officials do not want to say. With a change, this stunt would need to go through Congress for a formal vote. The scammers would be on record. The Democrats will not like this. The Democrats, who are. more pro-Big Brother have added more Agencies that all other political Parties combined. Now we know why.

A reformed system would have to debate new and old Agency rules. If the citizens complained, Congress would be on the record before the next election. No more free ride after secretly meeting with an Agency, to stick to a group; small businesses such as restaurants and gas stoves. Every Democrats knew what was going on, but now they can pretend their hands were tied. No more smoke and mirrors.

If you ever worked in Government, Agencies are not designed to be efficient, but rather to grow the agency. Being under budget is frown upon more than over budget. You need more people and/or more regulatory angles to justify more managers and more places for promotions; too many chiefs. Nobody can be fired and everyone wants a cost of living and room for promotion even with lifers solid in the higher jobs. There is a tendency to add more and more red tape, as a pretense of need, but it reality it is designed to laterally widen the Agency; expand the budget and promotion opportunities. Allowing no checks and balances, even allows Union bosses to bribe Democrats, with money and votes, to allow annual growth; visions of bigger voter blocks. Who controls union bosses who can influence the budget? It is called the recipients of donations and not the citizens.

I do not see the need for unions in Government, since Government makes the laws to protect all workers, and Government is anything but a cheap spartan employer, when it can blow through tax payer money adding debt with more borrowing. This annual growth of debt is part of the snowball effect. It is more for union donations and votes, than for added productivity.

Unions are useful in the private sector, where employers need to pinch pennies and compete, but Government can charge it on endless credit cards and has no competition. One solution is term limits for all new hire Government Employees, with job security for the 7-8 year duration of the term limit. Old employees can maintain what they have through retirement. There will be no need for future Unions, if the same goals are created in principle. This gets rid a layer of quid pro quo driven expansion.

Government agencies are structured on 1940's thinking; prepare for war. They are designed for the worse case scenarios like in war. If there was a war, most Agencies, would have all the skilled manpower needed at all levels, even with added redundancy for substitutes. However, most Agencies only exist for peacetime. What type of war is EPA expecting, unless they are the invaders to justify their own war time expansion, like targeted regulation to stick it to the fossil fuel industry. Then they need more soldiers to hold the line on their invasion. Expanding the IRS; Biden, was for an invasion into privacy. Citizens are no match for this runaway Government train, even with lawyers. Restructuring would build future Agencies for peace time, where fewer people are needed for the occupation forces. They are sympathetic and are there to help recover. They will not be there to become renegade invaders for hire, taking private orders, from those who appoint their leaders, who can then deny accountability.

 

[Quintessence]

Make no mistake, if this is struck down it will be the worst thing to happen to this country since...

... sadly, it wasn't that long ago that this farce of a court also made a catastrophically horrible decision. Sigh.

 

[icehorse]

Great OP!

And once again, it's only a step or two to connect the dots back to the fact that we've become an oligarchy / kleptocracy.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, let's give unelected administrators
the power to write & enforce legislation.

So what do you propose when the demands of a modern society swamp Congress to the point nothint gets done?
That's why they started to turning ti aids amd experts and created agencies. There's too much to get done and too much demand for expertise.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Then how does the average citizen deal with the various Agencies, if the Agencies are not accountable to the citizens, by election or by vote in Congress?

Learn how American Democracy works.

 

[BlueIslandGirl]

The problem here is that society has become complexified to such a degree, it is essentially no longer manageable, either by agencies or by congress.

I'm no fan of either agencies or congress. Both are essentially captured by corporate interests, and totally captured by the ideology of "economic growth at all costs". And most people vote party line, and pay little to no attention to what congress or the agencies are doing on a day to day basis. The choices for representation are limited. Anyone who's ever tried to engage with an issue knows it becomes basically a full time job to try to follow and understand just ONE issue much less the many that are ongoing every single day. You spend your time filing public record requests and trawling through mountains of documents to find the nuggets that might actually be useful. It is drudgery and one quickly pulls one's hair out in despair.

Many regulations the agencies make are based on specialized information that require a great deal of research, time, energy, effort to understand. Many are influenced by the interests of lobby groups. Will Congress have the time to do the research to understand what regulations are needed and what the nuances are? Doubtful. Will they be influenced by lobby groups? Likely. Therefore, it's unlikely that this will make any difference whatsoever.

The only long term solution to this mess is to massively de-complexify society. Most people are vehemently against that. And so we'll muddle on, very ineffectively.

 

[Revoltingest]

So what do you propose when the demands of a modern society swamp Congress to the point nothint gets done?
That's why they started to turning ti aids amd experts and created agencies. There's too much to get done and too much demand for expertise.

More thought should go into crafting the law.
Administrative decisions shouldn't create major policy.
To think this means "nothing gets done" seems a stretch.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Make no mistake, if this is struck down it will be the worst thing to happen to this country since...

... sadly, it wasn't that long ago that this farce of a court also made a catastrophically horrible decision. Sigh.

Wouldn't it be something if the Supreme Court does something else that sabatoges the Reps during an election year?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Here are some different takes on this.
Scholar explains implications of SCOTUS revisiting ‘Chevron deference’— Harvard Gazette

The Supreme Court cases asking the justices to put themselves in charge of everything, explained

From what I gather on these, this has almost nothing to do with Congress at all. It's about the power (and foolishness) of the courts. The Chevron Deference means that when Congress makes a law, but there are ambiguities in the wording of the law, if a question arises about complex issues, a group of experts on the subject should have a say as to how the issue should be resolved. This deference to the experts was the creation of the conservatives who wanted this piece of legislation back when their darling Reagan was POTUS, but the courts were fairly balanced. They could count on senile Reagan to pass legislation in favor of the big businesses to start with, and for companies (like Chevron) to have a say as to how the laws should be played out on themselves. But now Biden in POTUS, and the courts (particularly the SCOTUS) are horrifically rightward biased to insanity and beyond; they want the experts out.
Now, the conservatives want the courts (without any annoying experts) to have all the power to make the call as to how the unwritten details of a law should be carried out.
Obviously this would be WAY beyond the knowledge of some lawyer-types in black robes to either know what they're talking about half the time (imagine Clarence Thomas deciding on what makes a stem cell a human, or a fetus, or a block of tissue, and Brett Kavanaugh having the last word on whether deep sea slope drilling is an unwarranted hazard). The other half of the problem is that the courts simply won't have the time to deal with all the complexities (so a biased court will make summary judgements without bothering to look at the details at all).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, let's give unelected administrators
the power to write & enforce legislation.

On the other hand, let's give those whose primary strength is marketing themselves the power to decide on complex issues, the underlying science of which they couldn't understand with a 100 years of tutoring.

Doesn't sound like a great idea, either, does it?

Therefore, what you have now seems eminently reasonable. "We want clean water and air." Okay, legislators enact such a law. Now, how do you know what constitutes "clean water" or "clean air?" I suggest it's those who might know what happens when a child ingests too much lead, or when an adult inhales too much asbestos, or when fish grow more heads due to what's in the water -- and are able to provide research that even tries to define that mysterious term "how much."

I try to remember that many of those "administrators" are trained in a multitude of actual sciences.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Great OP!

And once again, it's only a step or two to connect the dots back to the fact that we've become an oligarchy / kleptocracy.

That has already been determined in 2014.

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

What in the World: A new report finds that an elite few dominate US policy, the human error behind South Korea's ferry tragedy, and Algeria's uneasy status quo election.

www.bbc.com

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, lets intentionally bog down Congress with an incomprehensibly massive work load so they're even less effective. Great idea!
This isn't the 18th Century anymore. Times have changed and there's a reason the functions of the state have evolved to help meet the needs of a changing society that is far more complex than it was a few centuries ago.

And we have seen how well informed many members of congress are about science. How many still reject climate change and evolution? The majority leader Johnson actually does reject evolution, and thinks the planet is 6000 years old. Do we really want him making important decisions?

Agencies are allowed a level of authority in making decisions because they actually employ experts in crucial areas being regulated. To pull expertise out of regulatory action is going to put citizens at risk.

 

[Revoltingest]

On the other hand, let's give those whose primary strength is marketing themselves the power to decide on complex issues, the underlying science of which they couldn't understand with a 100 years of tutoring.

Doesn't sound like a great idea, either, does it?

Neither is good.
But there's a Constitution for government to obey.

Therefore, what you have now seems eminently reasonable. "We want clean water and air." Okay, legislators enact such a law. Now, how do you know what constitutes "clean water" or "clean air?" I suggest it's those who might know what happens when a child ingests too much lead, or when an adult inhales too much asbestos, or when fish grow more heads due to what's in the water -- and are able to provide research that even tries to define that mysterious term "how much."

I try to remember that many of those "administrators" are trained in a multitude of actual sciences.

 

[Regiomontanus]

The US Constitution states that Congress will be in charge of making laws. However, about 40 years ago the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Regulatory Agencies; like EPA, who are more specialized, could also make laws and regulations apart from Congress.



This is being challenged as Unconstitutional, since the Congress is not longer making the law, but the vast majority of law is being created by those who were never specifically allowed to make laws in the Constitution.

The Constitution put Congress in charge of law making, thereby making those who make popular and/or unpopular laws, accountable to the people via elections. The Regulatory state is not elected, but appointed. Therefore, law making is longer accountable to the people. These regulators can linger in government an entire career; 30 years, and not be accountable to the people during a half dozen election cycles. They are put above the Constitution and now are being used by elected officials, to buffer the elected officials, from the consequences of decisions, that could backfire at election time, if they were still accountable.

For example, the various agencies connected to illegal immigration are not composed of elected officials. They are doing the bidding of the DNC and the Democrats; same philosophy. But since no Democrats has his or her name on any law, the DNC gets what they want, while being able to deny any connection to what is going on. Come election time, they can act like innocent by standers and blame someone else; Trump, since there is no signature on paper that connects them to this law; legal loophole. Now, citizens need to sue an agency, making this very expensive, so very few people can do anything. It appears to be designed to be a lawyer paradise and not conducive to freedom, but a type of monarchy.

If the Supreme Court was to overturn the precedent, members of Congress would have to put their names on all laws and regulations, and not be buffered by the independent players, like Fauci and the CDC, composed of unelected officials, who can be used as scapegoats and then pardoned. During the Russian Collusion Coup, the DN+C, used this with the Intel Agencies as a buffer.

The "Swamp" is connected to this shadow branch of Government. composed of appointed career bureaucrats with unelected regulatory power, that is above the law, and is often continuous from election to election. It is most allied with the Democrat party, who is the party of regulations and rules, and acts as a buffer to all DNC accountability. The FBI was the buffer agency between Obama and Biden, spying on then candidate Trump. Some members took the heat, but nothing happens to the elected officials at top, since the leaders can lie and deny; legal bull crap.

If the Chevron Deference is overturned, expect a quantum drop in regulation until Congress becomes fully accountable. This will cripple the Swamp. It may be a good idea to use that as a transition time, to simplify regulation to the best and simple core principles of all the agencies, and then rebuild, adding accountability clauses such as agency term limits. This will shrink government and lower costs.

However, it will cut into the Lawyer industry, needed to fight the bureaucratic state. Lawyers are needed fight against the Swamp, while also being an unaccountable part of the problem; parasite on a predator.

DEI is a government agency, that is partisan to the Left, and like a independent regulatory cancer needs containing, until Congress is accountable for their actions, based on signature votes, that can be used at election time. No more hiding behind the swamp to pick pocket America.

This is simply the latest attempt by the right-wing Creation haters to rape the Earth for profit. Disgusting and needs to be fought 'tooth and nail.'