The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority spent several hours Wednesday attacking a longstanding legal doctrine that gives federal agencies wide latitude to create policies and regulations in various areas of life.
The justices heard two cases concerning the so-called Chevron deference, which emerged from a 1984 case. Oral arguments in the first case went well beyond the allotted hour, with the conservatives signaling their willingness to overturn the decades-old case and their liberal colleagues sounding the alarm on how such a reversal would upend how the federal government enforces all kinds of regulations.
Congress routinely writes open-ended, ambiguous laws that leave the policy details to agency officials. The Chevron deference stipulates that when disputes arise over regulation of an ambiguous law, judges should defer to agency interpretations, as long as the interpretations are reasonable.
…
The three liberal justices warned during Wednesday’s pair of arguments that overturning the 1984 decision in Chevron would force courts to make policy decisions that they argue are better left for experts employed by federal agencies.
“I see Chevron as doing the very important work of helping courts stay away from policymaking,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, adding later: “I’m worried about the courts becoming über legislators.”
Billionaires have paid BOTH Republicans and Democrats for this legal victory. It’s another reason Obama didn’t fight hard for his pick, and why the dems didn’t stop Drunky McRape from getting a seat.
Theater was fine, but this is what all those campaign “donations” (read bribes) were for.
You’re getting downvoted but you’re right. Princeton even did a study
O.O
Saying the quiet stuff out loud in that article.
Lot of Brett Kavanaugh fans on lemmy apparently
We’ve been so convinced of the narrative of a just society, or at least of a society that’s capable of being just that there’s resistance to even acknowledging the deck is stacked.
It’s not about being convinced, it’s about the harmful false equivalence.
Didn’t fight hard for his pick? What did you expect him to do? Go in there and start punching people? The senate has to confirm his pick and republicans were/are notorious for blocking anything a democrat president tries to do.
There’s a ton of other shit too, but you get the point. Obama was quiet most days and played victim, bc the billionaires who owned him and who he bailed out of the financial crisis told him to ge a good boy and he did.
Spend every day having a press announcement? What’s that going to do when they already decided they weren’t going to give it to him. He had other responsibilities too you know.
Expand ing the court won’t do anything if the senate won’t confirm your nominations.
A court case saying it’s their duty? That doesn’t make sense. The constitution doesn’t say they have to accept his pick. That’s the whole point of checks and balances, right?
Push a case that threatened national security? Are you high? That doesn’t sound like anything a responsible president would do.
Constitution says they have to be confirmed by the senate. He can’t just tell someone to go sit in the empty seat. That’s not how it works. Again, are you high?
While Obama might have been beholden to corporate interests, I think you’re just plain wrong on this one buddy.
It’s really interesting how whenever these blue MAGATs ask what more should be done, they get a long, practical, and legal list of actions that can be taken to fight fascism with or without GOP obstructionism.
And yet they have nothing to say about it every time.
Enjoy your shithole, liberals. I vote socialist, not capitalist.
No. Im just not interested enough in refuting each point.
Edit: That was also only post a couple of hours ago. So what? I need to respond to you idiots immediately? Fuck off