SCOTUS might finally rein in govt agencies

Jmoser

Jmoser

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
1,629
Location
Greater Charlotte Area
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
www.americanprogress.org

Supreme Court Decision Could Shift Power Away From Federal Agency Experts

In the combined Relentless cases, the U.S. Supreme Court may overturn the Chevron doctrine, which would reverse 40 years of precedent and cause chaos for regulatory agencies.â¯
www.americanprogress.org www.americanprogress.org

Long story short if they rule the right way no federal agencies can enforce regulations that aren’t specifically written into law by Congress.

Light at the end of the ATF tunnel maybe.
Oral arguments Jan 17 so let’s see how things look.

‘Specifically, the cases seek to overturn the precedent established in the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which held that courts must defer to agency expertise when a statute that an agency implements is not specifically clear—as long as it is a “reasonable interpretation” of the statute. ’
 
Last edited:
Hoping but i am not confident which way Roberts or Barrett will vote.
 
I’ll bet $1 we get a favorable ruling BUT it’ll be very narrowly worded that it’ll have little impact on the AFT’s rule making nonsense.

They need to also fix the EPA claiming the stream down your side yard during a heavy rain is a navigable water way. :rolleyes:
 
Windini said:
Bias much?

"...but they are actually part of a long-term effort by right-wing and corporate interests to further weaken the power of government agencies to leverage their expertise and help everyday Americans."
Click to expand...
Help every day Americans. That’s hilarious. I think I prefer corrupt companies, at least their motives are pretty clear.
 
Windini said:
weaken the power of government agencies
Click to expand...
agreement.gif
 
It won’t do what you think.

I was involved in politics to a degree when republicans first got control in NC. One of the first things they did was basically the same thing.

But regulatory agencies are crafty and like all the rest hungry for power.

The senate pro tem told me at the time that he was playing wackamole with all of them.
 
Chdamn said:
It won’t do what you think.

I was involved in politics to a degree when republicans first got control in NC. One of the first things they did was basically the same thing.

But regulatory agencies are crafty and like all the rest hungry for power.

The senate pro tem told me at the time that he was playing wackamole with all of them.
Click to expand...
"Pour encourager les autres" needs to be in effect more.
 
commiecuriocollector said:
Don't hold your breath on Roberts...
Click to expand...
Actually his prior statements in similar cases suggest he's on board with clipping some wings. From the NY Post today:

​

When it accepted certiorari in both cases, the court posed a two-part question for the litigants to address: “Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.”
These two options reflect the thoughts some of the justices have evidenced in their prior opinions.
For example, in his majority opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, Chief Justice John Roberts commented, “We presume that ‘Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies,’ ” citing US Telecom Ass’n v. FCC.
And in his dissent in City of Arlington (Texas) v. FCC, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, he wrote that “The question [of] when an agency enjoys [interpretative authority] must be decided by a court, without deference to an agency.”
In their concurring opinion in West Virginia, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, referred to the “explosive growth of the administrative state since 1970,” as well as former President Barrack Obama’s 2014 promise to use executive orders and administrative rules to bypass Congress.
He wrote: “The Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives.”
Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his 2015 concurring opinion in Michigan v. EPA, asserted that the judicial power “requires a court to exercise its independent judgment in interpreting and expounding upon the laws,” adding that “Chevron deference precludes judges from exercising that judgment.”
 
Laws don’t stop criminal activity. Punishment does ! In my eyes the true assault on America and the constitution started with the fast and furious murderers who walked free. How this assault will end remains to be seen and wether America and the constitution perish from the earth.
 
Timfoilhat said:
Actually his prior statements in similar cases suggest he's on board with clipping some wings. From the NY Post today:

​

When it accepted certiorari in both cases, the court posed a two-part question for the litigants to address: “Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.”
These two options reflect the thoughts some of the justices have evidenced in their prior opinions.
For example, in his majority opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, Chief Justice John Roberts commented, “We presume that ‘Congress intends to make major policy decisions itself, not leave those decisions to agencies,’ ” citing US Telecom Ass’n v. FCC.
And in his dissent in City of Arlington (Texas) v. FCC, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, he wrote that “The question [of] when an agency enjoys [interpretative authority] must be decided by a court, without deference to an agency.”
In their concurring opinion in West Virginia, Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, referred to the “explosive growth of the administrative state since 1970,” as well as former President Barrack Obama’s 2014 promise to use executive orders and administrative rules to bypass Congress.
He wrote: “The Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives.”
Similarly, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his 2015 concurring opinion in Michigan v. EPA, asserted that the judicial power “requires a court to exercise its independent judgment in interpreting and expounding upon the laws,” adding that “Chevron deference precludes judges from exercising that judgment.”
Click to expand...

As long as he can make up some SCOTUS face-saving excuse for causing-and-then-waiting-decades-to-fix same, then yeah I guess we got a chance with him.

I just remember listening to his confirmation hearings and getting pretty tired of him saying "stare decisis, stare decisis, stare decisis" in response to most all questions. Made it sound more like taking the 5th.



Anyone who cares: "How can you justify this corrupt, inefficient and inept government?!?!?"




Chief Roberts: "Tradition!!!"


No wonder he got hired as CEO....
 
Windini said:
Bias much?

"...but they are actually part of a long-term effort by right-wing and corporate interests to further weaken the power of government agencies to leverage their expertise and help everyday Americans."
Click to expand...
So they are admitting that providing information to Congress for the purpose of writing legislation is not helping everyday Americans.
 
A move in the right direction if nothing more.
 
Some influential backers here

www.nytimes.com

A Potentially Huge Supreme Court Case Has a Hidden Conservative Backer

The case, to be argued by lawyers linked to the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch, could sharply curtail the government’s regulatory authority.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

‘
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday that, on paper, are about a group of commercial fishermen who oppose a government fee that they consider unreasonable. But the lawyers who have helped to propel their case to the nation’s highest court have a far more powerful backer: the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch.

The case is one of the most consequential to come before the justices in years. A victory for the fishermen would do far more than push aside the monitoring fee, part of a system meant to prevent overfishing, that they objected to. It would very likely sharply limit the power of many federal agencies to regulate not only fisheries and the environment, but also health care, finance, telecommunications and other activities, legal experts say.

“It might all sound very innocuous,” said Jody Freeman, founder and director of the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program and a former Obama White House official. “But it’s connected to a much larger agenda, which is essentially to disable and dismantle federal regulation.”
 
Jmoser said:
Some influential backers here

www.nytimes.com

A Potentially Huge Supreme Court Case Has a Hidden Conservative Backer

The case, to be argued by lawyers linked to the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch, could sharply curtail the government’s regulatory authority.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

‘
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday that, on paper, are about a group of commercial fishermen who oppose a government fee that they consider unreasonable. But the lawyers who have helped to propel their case to the nation’s highest court have a far more powerful backer: the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch.

The case is one of the most consequential to come before the justices in years. A victory for the fishermen would do far more than push aside the monitoring fee, part of a system meant to prevent overfishing, that they objected to. It would very likely sharply limit the power of many federal agencies to regulate not only fisheries and the environment, but also health care, finance, telecommunications and other activities, legal experts say.

“It might all sound very innocuous,” said Jody Freeman, founder and director of the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program and a former Obama White House official. “But it’s connected to a much larger agenda, which is essentially to disable and dismantle federal regulation.”
Click to expand...
Oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth ... it will shut down modern government, they say! Hopefully yes, it was never supposed to be agencies making up "regulations" outside of laws passed by congress that courts don't touch because of "deference" making for agencies in essence answering to nobody. And that's really the gist of all of this.
 
Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts are all on record previously showing a level of disdain for the administrative state. All we need is one more to concur. I don't think it's in question that some wings are getting clipped. I think it's a question of how short they go.
 
Walkabout Dan said:
Laws don’t stop criminal activity.
Click to expand...
Sometimes laws remove a process that enables criminal activity.

Congress says, Build of Border Wall, it gets built and illegal crossings diminish.

State Legislature says, Voter ID Required - Same Day In Person Voting Only, and tons of illegal voting stops.
 
Windini said:
Bias much?

"...but they are actually part of a long-term effort by right-wing and corporate interests to further weaken the power of government agencies to leverage their expertise and help everyday Americans."
Click to expand...
This, too:

"Moreover, the court [overturning Chevron] would be undermining Congress’ choice to defer to agencies, further skewing the carefully constructed set of checks and balances that exist between the federal branches of government[,] and hampering agencies’ ability to protect everyday Americans from corporate interests."

Administrative law does the opposite with respect to checks and balances. It only helps Congress defer to the Executive.
 
Last edited:
GymB said:
Today is the day, wish there was a live stream of oral arguments.
Click to expand...
Usually CNN and other major outlets have near time updates with highlights of key Q&A.
Plus they usually lead with something like ‘Justices appear skeptical of government arguments’ or ‘court seems inclined to agree with plaintiff’ etc etc.

Pretty easy to tell which way they lean sometimes. But you never know for sure . . .
Gotta wait 5 months for an opinion on this one.
 
MacEntyre said:
This, too:

"Moreover, the court [overturning Chevron] would be undermining Congress’ choice to defer to agencies, further skewing the carefully constructed set of checks and balances that exist between the federal branches of government[,] and hampering agencies’ ability to protect everyday Americans from corporate interests."

Administrative law does the opposite with respect to checks and balances. It only helps Congress defer to the Executive.
Click to expand...
I would contest that Congress isn’t necessary if they can defer to agencies.
 
Ferrisfan said:
I would contest that Congress isn’t necessary if they can defer to agencies.
Click to expand...
Agree, but that’s the wrong argument. The agencies are under the executive branch, elimination of the Congress would simply permit the executive branch to do whatever it wants while burdening the judicial branch (appointed by the executive branch) with sorting out the mess. Congress is needed, but it does need to get to work more often than it wants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom