SCOTUS: Chevron Doctrine: Corporations vs America

Issue before or regarding the Supreme Court of The United States

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

searcher

searcher

morning
Moderator
Benefactor
Messages
20,239
Reaction score
3,740
Points
288
Hope this hasn't already been posted.

Supreme Court takes on executive branch in broad fight over policymaking power​

The Supreme Court has been chiseling away at the administrative state for years. Now it may be poised to take a giant chunk of power away from federal regulators.

A legal fight over an obscure commercial fishing rule appears to be on the verge of fulfilling a decades long goal of legal conservatives: the demolition of a legal doctrine used to sustain a vast array of federal government policies ranging from gun safety to immigration to pollution controls.

The nation’s highest court will spend Wednesday mulling how much deference judges must give to federal agency regulations and other executive branch decisions. After more than a decade of pushing from conservatives, the court appears to be headed toward making it much easier for judges to strike down policies crafted by federal bureaucrats when the congressional authorization for those policies isn’t crystal clear.

A broad ruling against agency power would be a potent victory for business interests and other foes of regulation. And it would be sure to hinder the policymaking power of Joe Biden and his successors, because presidents — especially Democrats — have increasingly tried to use ambitious agency regulations to achieve their goals in the face of a calcified Congress.

More:

 

Corporations Have Been Salivating Over This SCOTUS Decision | Robert Reich​

The Supreme Court is hearing two cases that could upend federal regulations designed to protect us.
Big corporations are salivating for a ruling that goes their way.
Here’s what you need to know.

 
The executive branch should not be effecting restrictions on the people via administrative dictate. If Congress has not passed a Constiutional law enabling the executive branch, the court should absolutely strike down administative overreach. $.02
 
pmbug said:
The executive branch should not be effecting restrictions on the people via administrative dictate. If Congress has not passed a Constiutional law enabling the executive branch, the court should absolutely strike down administative overreach. $.02
Click to expand...
To say the least!

I can't imagine how any American with even a cursory knowledge of what America was intended to be, being in favor of such gov bs.

It's up to Congress to make the laws, not the executive agencies.

Regulations are only supposed to enforce the exact wording and explicit intent of the statutes enacted, not make shit up.

Edited to add: shit like that is how we ended up with a swamp in dc.
 
Good. This will force Congress to write laws with less ambiguity (or they cede power to the Judiciary).
 
From Hartmann Report:

open.substack.com

Does the EPA Die Today?

The Supreme Court, it appears, is planning to gut most of America’s regulatory agencies in what could be the most consequential re-write of the protective “deep state” since the New Deal…
open.substack.com open.substack.com
 
Legal analysis of the issue at play:
...
Last week, the Supreme Court heard nearly four hours of argument about the Chevron doctrine—including whether it should be cast aside. Not surprisingly, much of the argument consisted of different conceptions of what Chevron means. The nub of the problem is to specify what must happen for a court to depart from ordinary statutory interpretation (Chevron's step one) and defer to a reasonable agency interpretation of the statute (Chevron's step two). The argument (in Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce) largely proceeded on the assumption that a court must turn to step two if it concludes the statute is "ambiguous" or includes a "gap." At some points, however, the advocates and the Justices thought that the critical question was whether Congress has implicitly "delegated" interpretive authority to the agency.

If we attempt to solve the problem by parsing what was said in the 1984 Chevron case, we quickly encounter the difficulty that Justice Stevens said both things. He wrote, on the one hand, that the court should employ "traditional tools of statutory construction" to determine whether a statute is "silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue." In other words, ambiguity is the key.

But, on the other hand, he also wrote that if Congress makes "an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation," the agency's interpretation will prevail unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute." He immediately added: "Sometimes the legislative delegation to an agency on a particular question is implicit rather than explicit," in which case also the court should accept "a reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency." In other words, explicit or implicit delegation to the agency to interpret is the key.
...
Click to expand...

More:

reason.com

Prof. Thomas Merrill on "The Chevron Argument: Ambiguity Versus Delegation"

I'm delighted to pass along this item from Prof. Thomas Merrill (Columbia), whom readers might remember as a guest-blogger from…
reason.com reason.com
 
Joe King said:
To say the least!

I can't imagine how any American with even a cursory knowledge of what America was intended to be, being in favor of such gov bs.

It's up to Congress to make the laws, not the executive agencies.

Regulations are only supposed to enforce the exact wording and explicit intent of the statutes enacted, not make shit up.

Edited to add: shit like that is how we ended up with a swamp in dc.
Click to expand...
The pendulum swings....

Eventually we were bound to get to this point. Once regulations became accepted by courts as de-facto law, it was only a matter of time - many generations of bureaucrats, to be sure, but each came into position with the Overton Window having shifted a bit.

I don't know the details of the challenge here, but as it's been working through...in the name of "Climate Change" our vehicular fuels have been ordered modified to where they are damaging and more expensive in preparation. Automobiles have been regulated to the point where compliance is not cost-effective at the present (pricing economy new cars out beyond realistic reach of most people) and will essentially ban them in the future.

These regulators do not live in the real world, outside their Beltway bubble; and they have contempt for the needs of real-world citizens, making much less money than government drones, and with no input on this carpet-bombing of "regulations."
 

US Supreme Court decision on deference could impact oil, gas policies: experts​

The US Supreme Court will soon decide whether to limit the discretion given to agency regulations, and a decision to scale back or do away with so-called Chevron deference could hinder agencies' ability to consider the climate and conservation impacts of oil and gas projects and leases, experts say.

Chevron deference could come up if agencies take final action on a range of controversial issues, including the Department of Energy's decision to pause approvals of LNG exports to consider issues like climate, and the Bureau of Land Management's proposal to lease land for conservation rather than a use like oil and gas extraction.

More:

 
searcher said:
Opinion piece.

www.theguardian.com

A supreme court case about fishermen could throw government into chaos

For decades, the Chevron deference doctrine has given broad powers to federal agencies. Now it could be overturned – with major consequences
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
From the article: "The law....gives federal agencies the authority to interpret laws when they are unclear. "

"Unclear" is another word for vague.

In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand.
- vaguness doctrine

It is congresses duty to write legislation that is the opposite of vague.

The only reason to allow congress to write vague laws, is so that an unelected bureaucracy CAN interpret it any way they want. It's a "feature" of progressivism.
 
giphy.webp
 
NYT

What the Chevron Ruling Means for the Federal Government​

The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to limit the broad regulatory authority of federal agencies could lead to the elimination or weakening of thousands of rules on the environment, health care, worker protection, food and drug safety, telecommunications, the financial sector and more.

The decision is a major victory in a decades-long campaign by conservative activists to shrink the power of the federal government, limiting the reach and authority of what those activists call “the administrative state.”

The court’s opinion could make it easier for opponents of federal regulations to challenge them in court, prompting a rush of new litigation, while also injecting uncertainty into businesses and industries.

“If Americans are worried about their drinking water, their health, their retirement account, discrimination on the job, if they fly on a plane, drive a car, if they go outside and breathe the air — all of these day-to-day activities are run through a massive universe of federal agency regulations,” said Lisa Heinzerling, an expert in administrative law at Georgetown University. “And this decision now means that more of those regulations could be struck down by the courts.”

The decision effectively ends a legal precedent known as “Chevron deference,” after a 1984 Supreme Court ruling. That decision held that when Congress passes a law that lacks specificity, courts must give wide leeway to decisions made by the federal agencies charged with implementing that law. The theory was that scientists, economists and other specialists at the agencies have more expertise than judges in determining regulations and that the executive branch is also more accountable to voters.

More:

 
pmbug said:
SCOTUS got this one right.
Click to expand...
They've been gettin' a lot more right in these past few years.

Had the hag gotten in, all of 'em woulda gone the other way. There would have been NO correct rulings.
 
^^^^ You laugh, but Article 2 clearly states that only Congress has Legislation authority.

You don't want our gov to act in an unConstitutional manner, do you?
 
^^^ Give any convicted of that, $1 million for their trouble, and an additional $1 million per week of wrongful incarceration.
....and all of it comes out of the DOJ's budget.
 
Joe King said:
Asking Congress to do it's job, should be supported by all Americans.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. A lot of them are worthless. They are very good a kicking cans down the road. Real good at it.

Joe King said:
Then you should be in favor of this ruling.
Click to expand...

I think we need certain agencies to protect us from big biz. I remember reading in school and watching news shows about big biz poisoning rivers and streams because there were no laws in place or government agencies to stop them.

Also read about anti-trust laws and why they came about.

While I'm all for limited government, we (the people) need laws in place to protect us from unscrupulous business practices and agencies to enforce those laws.

There are people running businesses who would shit all over the environment, poison our food supplies, steal your money, etc., etc, if they thought they could get away with it.

The screw balls in the supreme court know this all too well. But they are bought and paid for by the very people they should be protecting us from:

www.pmbug.com

Supreme Shenanigans

Justice Alito and Supreme Court Ethics Alito’s biting, political speech highlights the need for reform. November 20, 2020 Janna Adelstein On November 12, Justice Samuel Alito gave a controversial speech to the Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal group with close ties to the...
www.pmbug.com www.pmbug.com
 
searcher said:
Couldn't agree more. A lot of them are worthless. They are very good a kicking cans down the road. Real good at it.
Click to expand...
The answer is to have them write laws that are clear on their meaning and intent.


searcher said:
I think we need certain agencies to protect us from big biz. I remember reading in school and watching news shows about big biz poisoning rivers and streams because there were no laws in place or government agencies to stop them.
Click to expand...
Why can't congress write laws that are clear and concise in order to deal with that?

searcher said:
While I'm all for limited government, we (the people) need laws in place to protect us from unscrupulous business practices and agencies to enforce those laws.

There are people running businesses who would shit all over the environment, poison our food supplies, steal your money, etc., etc, if they thought they could get away with it.
Click to expand...
Because it is congress' job to write legislation. Don't like that? Then work to Amend the Constitution to allow an faceless, unelected bureaucracy
to write laws that the People must abide by.

searcher said:
The screw balls in the supreme court know this all too well. But they are bought and paid for by the very people they should be protecting us from:
Click to expand...
All they did was to judge the case against the Constitution. Are you against the Constitution? Kinda sounds like it if you want our gov to do something other than what it says just to satisfy your political views.


The Constitution says what it says, not what we might sometimes like it to say.
 
Joe King said:
All they did was to judge the case against the Constitution. Are you against the Constitution? Kinda sounds like it if you want our gov to do something other than what it says just to satisfy your political views.
Click to expand...

I honestly believe this was a judicial power grab and an end run to help Project 2025 along a bit. Certain people are trying to take this country back in time to some sort of pre-civil war south.

I don't want that. I prefer the here and now America.
 
searcher said:
I don't want that. I prefer the here and now America.
Click to expand...
So you prefer an America that doesn't follow it's own Founding Document?

Imho, that's what's got us to this point of everything being screwy. We've had over 100 years of it. The gov isn't there to be our mommy and daddy.
 
Joe King said:
So you prefer an America that doesn't follow it's own Founding Document?
Click to expand...

It has to be looked at in today's world - not when it was written. Our world today is far different than the world of those who wrote the Constitution.

And it needs to be looked at by people who are not being paid off to interpret it in a way that benefits a small minority over the vast majority.
 
searcher said:
It has to be looked at in today's world - not when it was written.
Click to expand...
Then use the Amendment process to change it to match today's World.

Don't just find ways to subvert it.

searcher said:
Our world today is far different than the world of those who wrote the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Not really. The Constitution was mostly intended to restrain humans tendency towards seeking power over their fellow man.
....and men have been working to over come those limitations ever since. Been making lots of progress on that front in the past 100 years or so, and we are seeing the results today.


searcher said:
And it needs to be looked at by people who are not being paid off to interpret it in a way that benefits a small minority over the vast majority.
Click to expand...
They are not doing that. You just don't like it cause your side ain't getting their way on everything no more, like they used to for the past 100 or so years.
 
Joe King said:
They've been gettin' a lot more right in these past few years.

Had the hag gotten in, all of 'em woulda gone the other way. There would have been NO correct rulings.
Click to expand...
It's not over till it's over.

And the fetid air we smell, suggests the flapping of her leathery wings.

CANKLES, TO SAVE US ALL!...from Dementia Joe and DRUMPF!
 
searcher said:
It has to be looked at in today's world - not when it was written. Our world today is far different than the world of those who wrote the Constitution.

And it needs to be looked at by people who are not being paid off to interpret it in a way that benefits a small minority over the vast majority.
Click to expand...
There have been amendments made to the constitution in order to reflect modern times. We no longer have slavery. Everyone is allowed to vote (Which I actually think is wrong) Only property owners or those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote. Pretty simple concept. You pay into a system and you get to decide how that money is spent. You don't pay into the system then you aren't allowed to vote for free stuff from my wallet.
Go into anyplace that has a high welfare population and gather up 50 welfare recipients and 50 people who go to work everyday and pay taxes. Ask for a show of hand of how many think welfare should be increased to 10,000 a month. You will see a 50/50 divide more than likely.
It's the same basic concept at the federal level only in a more complicated fashion so they can hide what's really going on.
For instance: congress passes a bill and there is an item in there to spend 50 million with Joe's company (Joe being a generic term and not referring to our current dementia resident). So congress critters go to Joe and say, hey we just gave you 50 mil to create jobs and 6 of those jobs will be no show jobs by a few of our family members at 100-150k a year. Joe says, hey no problem, its the least I can do for my generous benefactors in congress. Left or right, it doesn't matter. Times are good at the company for now with all that government money rolling in and the employees there are sure to vote for whoever was responsible for that money rolling in.

There is no basis in the constitution for this to be allowed. Lets go back a couple decades. There were no bailouts or free money for companies from the government. Remember when Chrysler needed a loan. There was a major uproar over it because bailing our corporations was not part of the federal governments job. In the end it was allowed as a one time thing in extraordinary circumstances. Sadly, today the money is just spend willy nilly with no regard for the taxpayers.

Back to your original statement though. Please point out some things in the constitution that you think are outdated. I hear this a lot from others as well without any specific examples. So are there any examples or is it just rhetoric? Lets discuss
 
Cigarlover said:
Everyone is allowed to vote (Which I actually think is wrong)
Click to expand...
Universal Sufferage is the cause of the failure of all republics.

As well as all democracies - but democracy is doomed structurally; a republic can survive a good long time IF it restricts input to citizens who have a true stake in the nation-state. Such as, as you note, property owners. Or tax payers, over a given threshold.

Else people simply, as de Tocqueville noted, vote themselves largess out of the public coffers.
 
searcher said:

Clarence Thomas has accepted $4M in gifts during career: …​

Supreme Court: Gifts for Justices Explained in 3 Charts​

Click to expand...
Can you show where any of this caused rulings that went against the Constitution?

Imo, as long as the Court is using an originalist, or as close to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution as possible, there is no problem.

Now if you could show where Justices had been given gifts and then made rulings that went against the Constitution, and were in cases involving those that gave the gifts, I'd say you are on to something.
....but you seem to be complaining about the fact that they are making rulings more in line with the actual intent of the Constitution.

They ain't all the way there yet, but are closer than they've been in decades.
 
Cigarlover said:
Back to your original statement though. Please point out some things in the constitution that you think are outdated.
Click to expand...
@searcher , could you please respond to what he is asking here?

I too would be very interested in knowing some of what you think is outdated in it?

To me, it seems near-perfect.

Only things I'd add would be:
A requirement that ALL Bills before Congress be single issue, and that they be clear as to the intent of Congress for the Bill. If in the least bit vague, they become null and void.

An explicit Right to privacy in the Bill of Rights.

More clearly and narrowly define the interstate commerce Clause.

Remove Treaties from Article 6. Or at the least, only allow Treaties that are in 100% agreement with the Constitution. Ie: no entering Treaties that destroy or override anything in the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom