What the Supreme Court decision overturning Chevron deference means to you
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- Read the transcript here: federalnewsnet...
The Supreme Court last week overturned a 40 year precedent. In a case brought by New England fisherman, the court reversed what's been know as Chevron deference. In the 1984 case, the courts said judges should generally defer to federal agencies when rules they make are reasonable, and the enabling law was ambiguous. Last week's decision reverses that thinking. For what this may mean for agency rulemaking operations, the Federal Drive with Tom Temin turned to the chair of the Administrative Conference of the United States, Andy Fois. - Наука та технологія
It was legalized extortion it took forty years to get it done.
its only addressed half the problem. those agencys are not authorized by the constitution thus congress cant create a law creating them as they did dept of ed. the founders were against the centralization of education and this guy talks about executive orders, e.o. only are vaild guiding and instructing the executive branch and making sure laws are enforced
Unelected agencies empowering,& imposing fines, is unconstitutional.
Excellent breakdown. Simple terms for everyone to understand. Thank you Tom.
Hopefully this brings the price of all fish down a bit, not just herring.
Ha!
It means deprivation of rights under color of law comes to an end after forty long unconstitutional years.
Closer to ninety years.
How will the general public be able to approach this new rule to apply to their legal matters now? Where do they begin?
This is a good thing removing the Chevron Deference.
No such thing as rule makers other than we the people!
These courts have been able to turn purple into green for far to long.
Leonard Leo put some fishermen in the Lober Bright vs Raimondo case to mumble about some shit to overtun the Chevron Deference. Now that companies, instead of public legal establishments, will interpret the law however they want, maybe you get why Chevron Defernece was necessary to exist.
This is a great decision! If an agency's leaders believe the agency needs additional authority, beyond that prescribed in existing law, the correct approach is for the agency to draft legislation providing for that, and send the draft to Congress along with a request for it to be passed.
This is how it happens. What they do is vote on fill in the blank pages.
whats being missed here.. are the agency constitutional to start with... does the federal government constitutionally have authority to create the epa ? dept of ed ? dept of energy ? the usda ? the constitution does not give authority for congress to create laws
Nothing will change
Will this decision Force judges to operate an article 3 Court rather than a military court?
How about the wind farm in the ocean.that make no sense
So, not at all worried about our water-ways being poisoned from fracking/chemicals, not concerned about regulations and standards for what’s deemed safe? You’re saying it’s good to not defer to a separate panel filled with experts when we do have ambiguous laws that ultimately affect our lives. So if your land becomes contaminated, you do not want to have a higher governing body to ensure companies like BP and Exxon do not skimp on regulations? Meaning, because the court says so, that’s it? No more oversight?
I’m confused why people see this as a good thing. Power? Supreme Court justices just granted more power to the president recently. You can trust that they’ll do the same for the people?
this is an incredibly underrated comment and spot on
You fail to comprehend just how brain damaged the Trump cult is
I hear you but respectively disagree ......the Congress needs to get off their butts and create common sense laws that will protect us......a 3 or 4 letter agency does NOT have the best interests of the people of this country, those 3 or 4 letter agencies only do what whatever the ruling parties want
@@sshomesteaders1776
A. You sound like a Fox "news" junkie
B. Do you trust Marjorie "The Hillbilly" Taylor Greene and Lauren "The prostitute" Boebert to create quality laws?
Oh yeah full of experts my arse, How old are you and have you ever had to deal with bureaucrats? Well I have, If you think for one minute our world is going to be polluted because YOUR so called experts can't create laws/impose nasty arse fines then you need to move to europe. Who is the best expert for interpreting law? Fricken judges DUH!!!! not your so called experts, They need to get a law passed do it the same way the PEOPLE do, through congress. Jeebus you people think were gonna turn into china.
The first nature of business is to feather your own nest.
Ignorance must be bliss huh buddy? 1984 is when chevron came into being They took the power from the "Judicial" and gave it to the "executive" branch, They just now figured out this craps unconstitutional so they took it back. You need a brain.
Government is but an agency to the state the state being the sovereign people.