re: Libtards Freaking Out Over Chevron Decision

quote:

---

Second, that scenario would never happen under Chevron because they would be forced to state the regs up front,

---

Chevron or no Chevron, agencies aren't forced to "state the regs up front" or make any regs unless Congress or the admin orders them to do so.

quote:

---

Oh horse hockey, the only reason the regs are so cumbersome to begin with are so "policy makers" can justify their jobs.

---

These regs are gaps left by Congress.

If the agencies aren't making the rules, and Congress envisions a law having certain powers/effects, they will have to fill the gaps themselves.

quote:

---

Cut out half the agencies, cut the staff in half of the remaining, and they will figure out how to write a succinct and short policy.

---

This has nothing to do with Chevron and could have been done with Chevron remaining in tact.

quote:

---

Think of questions like whether a product derived from red rice yeast, which purportedly helps promote healthy cholesterol levels, counts as a “drug” or a “dietary supplement” under federal law?

---

Oh no’s!!! Whatever shall we do?!?
Sounds like a victory for the free market to me.

quote:

---

Proggies are having a real bad time right now. They don't know which way is up.

---

They don’t know whether to shite or go blind.

Hi! I’m SFP.

I’m going to argue for 47 fricking pages with everyone who’s glad this ruling was overturned then get asshurt when people accuse me of being a shill for the ruling! I’ll ultimately call everyone stupid, cram in a few Trump insults, and then disappear when the thread loses steam or gets anchored. It’s what I do on here everyday! It’s pretty much all I have!

See you tomorrow!

I read half of it. Basically his argument is that judges are not experts and need to defer to people who have studied the topic for decades. It's just more of the leftist "trust the experts" nonsense. This means we have to trust some cat lady with a gender studies degree from Harvard because she knows what's best for all of us.

His second point was that judges are not accountable to voters, but he seemed to believe that nameless people inside EPA somehow are. What a joke.

I am fine with experts who act in good faith, but that's never what happens with leftists. Their goal is always political no matter what. Global warming is a prime example. It's not about lowering CO2 but about weakening the U.S. This is easily provable if you just read the Paris Accord.The U.S. is massively punished and must follow all sorts of economy busting rules, but China has to follow NONE. Why? Because the Paris Accord considers China a "developing country" and therefore the rules don't apply to them. Is there any doubt that China probably wrote the document?

If it were about CO2, they would be building nuclear plants, but that never happens. Indeed California just shut down their last nuclear plant (despite it having a 30 year license from NRC). Even Stanford scientists told them it is a horrible idea, but they mothballed it anyway. (Party of science at work).

quote:

---

Basically his argument is that judges are not experts

---

Isnt that the purpose of the court

You present evidence. The judge weighs the matter and decides. He doesnt have to be an expert

We let 'experts' cram vaccines down our throats while banning other drugs. Just because. And then also gave them liability for doing so. So now a judge cant even decide against 'experts', Knowing they were wrong

Congress will now have to clarify gaps in legislation, and suffer the consequences at election time. Experts never suffer consequences. We dont even know who they are. Nor what makes them experts in their field

quote:

---

It's not the job of the agency to set laws and regulations.

---

No, it literally IS the job of agencies to set regulations.


The issue comes in the interpretation of the law that the statue is based on. Chevron said "defer to the agencies" on interpretation even if the court thought there was a better interpretation.

This removes that for future agency regulations.

But agencies will still interpret laws and make regulations based on those laws. However, now the courts do not have to show them deference.

This is completely appropriate.

However, it could get courts into a lot of weed fields. If you don't like unelected agencies making policy decisions, I am not sure you will like unelected judges making decisions.

It will require a more active congress to constantly revise laws. That's their job. The problem is...they suck at their job.