Law Grad Breaks Down SCOTUS Overturning Chevron Deference
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- This recent SCOTUS decision is probably one of the most important in modern history - here’s what happened
(via darilynmonrosee on Instagram)
» Sign up for our newsletter KnowThis to get the biggest stories of the day delivered straight to your inbox: go.nowth.is/kn...
» Subscribe to NowThis Impact: go.nowth.is/Im...
For more stories like this, subscribe to @NowThisImpact.
#Court #SupremeCourt #Education #2024 #Politics #News #NowThis
Connect with NowThis
» Like us on Facebook: go.nowth.is/Im...
» Connect with us on Twitter: go.nowth.is/Im...
» Follow us on Instagram: go.nowth.is/Im...
» Find us on Snapchat Discover: go.nowth.is/Im...
NowThis is your premier media outlet providing you with all the content you need to stay up to date. We’re delivering all you need to know straight to your social feeds. We live where you live.
/ @nowthisimpact
@nowthisimpact
I love how outraged they are at the idea of getting rid of unelected oligarchs in the name of democracy.
You meant unfetter "CorporATE persons " at the expense of actual corpoREAL people.
@fm2dmax you got it all wrong. This repeal changes no current laws or regulations. It just gives individuals, corporations and state down to local governments a chance to be fully heard in court and get a desicion based on all evidence with increased scrutiny from the judges as to whether a policy/rule/ or regulation is constitutional vs automatically deferring to the offending agency. No where in this ruling did it say everyone could go back to doing whatever they want. Geez you people need to read more for yourselves and stop believing everything you hear.
This ruling allowed Force reset triggers to be determined legal and not an NFA item. Otherwise the courts would never have entertained the case because they would "Defered" to ATF.
@@brandonsheffield9873 Will corporations shop for friendly judges? You bet they will. Will made-up challenges be made and brought to a friendly court? You bet they will. Will Americans trust a judge's decision? You know they won't trust any decisions that favor corporations, and they won't be wrong. Nobody would give the benefit of the doubt to a corporation.
Those above the law are the oppressors
Like JoBi and Hilary?
Joe and Jill went up the hill to fetch-up all the power, Joe fell down, broke his crown, and Jill came puppeting after!
Earth to you: the oppressors MAKE the law.
Unelected partisan judges are in charge now!
The oppressed/oppressor mindset is a Marxist mindset. Stop being foolish
I told people that the last two days of SCOTUS rulings has changed more than all the rest of my life and I am 70
Much of the change is long overdue.
@@Jim-ei2iv Okay Vladimir. Putin sends his thx
@@Jim-ei2ivlike what? Only a small minority of people wanted most of these changes. 2/3 of people supported roe v wade and overturning it has nearly killed thousands of women already, without the cheveron decision it’ll now take years to pass simple regulations that would help the safety of various systems, and their other decisions just put power in the hands of the wealthy and the executive.
None of these decisions are good, let alone “overdue” like you said.
@@Jim-ei2iv Care to explain which one and why?
You are the problem @@Jim-ei2iv
“Their own hands” are not safe. They have shown us time and time again
Your analysis fails to note that Chevron defference allowed agencies to interpret ambiguities in the law that the agency was responsible for writing and prompted agencies to begin purposefully writing more ambiguous laws so they could later interpret them in ways which infringed fundamental Liberty interests of citizens that are guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Because the agencies regulations were given the force of law by Chevron it provided no recourse for individuals or entire classes of people adversely affected by a regulation which expressly violates or infringes a constitutional protection. Chevron left no recourse except lengthy and frightfully expensive litigation that favored the regulatory body who fought the citizen with the boundless budget of the government and could easily win the fights by attrition after stretching out cases until a citizen Could no longer afford to litigate and was forced to capitulate to the agency
BATF is famous for exactly those tactics. You also fail to mention that many of the experts of these regulatory bodies were just plain incorrect or ignorant about locales with different or unique considerations that a one siize fits all regulation failed to address, but Chevron allowed the regulatory body to make that call to the disadvantage of the people affected by the regulation which had no application in the unique circumstances in which the agency was attempting to enfirce it. TheUSDA comes to mind as famous for such regulations that bankrupted farmers and actually caused more environmental harm than it did good for the lands they were regulating blindly through misguided policy
She's saying this about spooks yall. Just fyi.😑👍
@@mercurochromic Without Chevron deference, profit seeking entities are largely unbound by government regulation, and are free to seek increase without governing restraint. The gilded age should've been enough to tell us how horrible this will be. There is no argument justifying industrial waste in our water supplies, or pharmaceutical price gouging-or mass addiction-creation, or unrestrained pollution to the detriment of surrounding communities and the general environment.
A functioning congress can fix problems with un-nuanced laws not addressing complexity at an appropriate level; profit seeking entities will not address the damages they cause to everything in their quest for more money.
I cant believe I have to say this.
Businesses cannot be trusted.
So basically it’s free reign for private corporations to do whatever they want with no fear of the government, if that happens, do you even have a country at that point?
The big problem with deference has been that things stopped being decided by 'experts', instead being decided by the newly appointed head however the administration now in charge liked. Change of party, change of rules, what was legal last term was now illegal with penalties that could include imprisonment. This isn't how laws are supposed to work.
Are you saying to end political appointees?
Like who? Name the "expert"
You understand most of those officials you're speaking of have served in that position through multiple presidents, both republican and Democrat?
@@larryrobinson08 No. But an unelected bureaucrat shouldn't have the power to make something that was legal now illegal, punishable by fine or imprisonment. There is an actual process in place to do that. Amend the law or make a new one.
@@skullcowboy9609 Yep. We have laws and a legal system designed to do this. Giving the old boys network power to change the rules on a whim has been disastrous for the country.
The problem with Chevron Deference is that these agencies took advantage of their positions of power to pursue agendas that overstepped their perview.
Also, Congress has been lazy in providing distinct and discrete legislation. The advice of experts should be inculcated in crafting the legislation at least as much as executing it.
what agendas?
@@rdkirk3834 ... Yes exactly, Congress makes the laws and says what to do. Just saying to EPA "do what seems to clean air at affordable cost and impose fines that seem needed" for example is Congress skipping any work of figuring out things in advance, and is this even a law. It just makes a mockery of laws that are supposed to be debated and picked by elected persons, in this example each side at best can only guess what the EPA will do and then vote along party lines. Modern laws are no longer laws, they are just blank checks. There's a reason Biden or any sitting President can raise billions, every corporation is literally afraid Biden will tell a bureaucrat to reinterpret a law and close down a company, it is total dictatorship in 1 man with power to destroy any business who annoys him, the opposite of rule of law and lack of fear we want. Its almost crazy we ever thought this was how a free country could work, the law is whatever the bureaucrat says he finds affordable new actions he imposes on business. Crazy, almost hilarious, its so dumb a way to operate a country.
@@borginburkes1819 🙄
@@borginburkes1819its 2024 and you're living in the economy as us.
At this point we can all see your hatred of anything nonwhite naziboi.😑
Agencies are not regulating they are legislating, something nonellected officials are not permitted to do.
That would be more convincing if there wasn't a wannabe dictator right at our doorstep with trump.
I don’t think elected officials have the right to make law either.
A lie made up for the sake of Project 2025.
Lies made up for the sake of Project 2025.
Proof??
This ruling also stopped agencies from creating "regulations" which is essentially creating unlawful laws. Unlawful because these regulations and those agencies do not have to go through our legislature to do so.
That whole covid lockdown debacle that did more harm to our society? Won't happen again in America.
If agencies were able to be held accountable by our representatives in congress then this case would not have had to be overturned. Alas there has been too many subpoenas and questions go unanswered/unaccounted for.
Thats why the SCOTUS overturned this.
@Cerceify Correct, that happens also. But that has nothing to do with the matter of why the SCOTUS overturned the Chevron case. What I stated earlier is why.
The departments are the SME. There are processes to ensure the rules and regulations are reflective of best practices and input into the regulations.
Like what? Regulations are not "unlawful laws". Any regulations can be reviewed and altered by congress; when regulations cant be applied you have true lawlessness. This was conservatives satisfying their big money corporate donors so they can do almost whatever they want and government cant stop them.
I'm a high school grad and about the chevron decision. It's Congress main purpose is to make laws, not federal agencies.
Bingo. Basic civics highlights the importance of separated powers in government.
It's not about the laws; they still stand. It's about the interpretation of the regulations and laws. She is saying the agencies with their experts will not have the ultimate say; the companies who disagree will. It's an inherent conflict of interest. That's the purpose of federal agencies when interpreting the law. To resolve the conflict of interest within the government, you have three branches: judicial, executive, and legislative. The problem now is that politics have compromised the independence of the branches.
federal agencies like other "experts" at pocket lining want to grow themselves. exp: even with professors They have to get published so they push the "cool" propagandas, "scientist" want to get paid and hold on to their jobs so they do the same, not till they retire are they free to tell the truth...
and lawyers LOL, are taught to argue all sides usually for the criminals, We have got to get away from the "experts."
@@Anthonyjt12 Not quite. True, the agencies will not have the ultimate say. That does not mean the regulated entities will. The Courts still do, but the Courts are no longer obligated to defer to regulators just because they are regulators. The Court will now have to weigh facts and make a decision. They can still find in favor of the regulators.
I dont care if they are so called experts in the field or study, they cannot be both interpreter and enforcer of the statutes. This is wrong and it creates new interpretations with hardly any oversight.
How is it wrong to let people who know what they are talking about make decisions?
This guts the rules and regulations to stop benefiting the regulators that can sway institutions for their profits instead of benefiting the taxpayers.. we are from the government and we are here to help, OURSELVES..
@@Alverantour government is we the people, not the unlimited power of any institution strongarming us to the breaking point for their gsin.gain.. aren't you tired of getting the short end of the stick when you need medical care and the insurance companies being able to cut off lifesaving care because there is no profit in it for them?
Regulators can be bought and paid for, human nature is self serving sadly in this day and age, do you think rules and regulations are put in place to benefit you?
Look at the history of this country and how "our government" has become the single largest corporation on the face of the planet?
Do you think this is not by design?
@@Alverant , you want these experts to make decision about statute interpretations that they also enforce? Do you think people are just inherently good?
Not even that, but at a worker level, like a cop, just following orders can make a hero become a villain. Can you not understand why or how this got corrupted, especially given the infection of Marxism, which commands many agendas today?
@@Alverantlike Fauci?
Your oversimplification and dire warnings are unwarranted. The Court explained in detail the reasons Chevron was being overturned. It was an arbitrary expansion of Govt power to create regulations without any oversight. In the past few years these alphabet agencies have created and changed regulations on a massive scale which Congress had never envisioned. It needed correction.
So you’re gonna trust the Supreme Courts word at face value?
@@kwill84I trust them more than the alphabet agencies who had their power curtailed thanks to this ruling.
Yes, the Supreme Court is the supreme law in the land. Even legal experts can argue but have to eventually sit down. Lol😂
@@kwill84no, I trust individual experts in the private economy in each field, lol.
So then scale it back. Don't just gut it all.
They put it back in the hands of Congress where it belongs.
Exactly. Now congressmen will have to do their jobs.
Congressmen won’t do their jobs tho
@@patriot9487 They won't have a choice now, or they'll lose their seat to someone that will.
@@_.-AAA-._that is a wonderful thought but I have little to no faith in our current political bodies. None of them
I missed the part where We the People created a system which gives unelected "Experts" so much power over the citizens.
Especially when those EPA, IRS, FBI, SEC, FTC, CIA 'experts' are not really experts at all, but petty, biased bureaucrats with some whacky socialist ideology and want to play Soviet-style apparatchiks over citizens in the USA who should be free from that sort of government oppression.
I prefer unelected experts to partisan hacks. Republicans have destroyed America in just 10 short years. Enjoy your fascism John.
So if a corporation decides to dump their toxic waste in your neighborhood, you are chill with that?????
You would rather that a political appointee do so? Cause it will be done but I would rather it be someone who knows what they are talking about than some political hack who got the job because of money under the table.
@@terry2346 Duh! You don't know real life. The real 'hack' is already working for the deep-state, cocky abusive agency now. At least, the people have a say in who gets elected and can appoint a reformer, but a punk communist like you hates democracy I guess.
It’s a good thing it was overturned. Non governmental agencies SHOULD NOT determine what the law means. That is the job of the judicial branch.
Thank you so much for breaking this down to the people who don’t know all the ins and outs of these laws… And you say it so eloquently. Please keep your knowledge information coming on the Internet for so many in this crazy crazy world we’re living in.
Even as slanted as it is.
Taking the power back from the unelected administrative state & giving it back to the elected Congress & the courts is a Win for We the People. This law grad allegedly hates the constitution & our republican form of government. We have ELECTED representatives to protect our constitutional rights & create laws within boundaries of those rights. It is not constutional to permit UNELECTED bureaucrats to create laws to benefit themselves, but their job is simply to enforce legitimate laws made by our ELECTED representatives. She has this backwards for some reason. Maybe she should go back to school to study the Constitution & the Republican form of government.
The judicial branch makes law, not doctors or scientists
@budrip3479 Congress makes laws.
@@mgday933the only people who hate the constitution is trump and his maga cult. He literally hates everything about this country and admires how dictatorship run countries function. He despises the free press and wishes that he could be just like Putin. No other president in the history of this country has ever needed this type of immunity. Want to know why? Because they followed the law. But it’s okay go ahead and have your fun now because the Supreme Court just made sure that trump loses this election again. Now that I think about it maybe that was their plan 🤔
Surely, you understand that the Chevron Deference was not all good. It was getting abused by political bias, kickbacks, bribes, agency bloat, etc., and small businesses were getting hurt the worst by all these regulations. A fairer, more balanced system is needed.
This new decision was made possible by $$millions in bribes, also known as dark money, aka Citizens United. And a long-term lobbying effort by the Heritage Fnd. Most of the people funding those efforts are ultraconservative corporate billionaires. I can guarantee they don't care about you or small businesses. But the decision will allow them to rake in $$$millions more for their offshore accounts.
This SCOTUS wasn’t motivated by good intentions. Just like trump’s better healthcare plan than the ACA never materialized, neither will a fairer, more balanced system.
And handing power over to conservative judges is fairer and more balanced? Better for small business?
The problem with your assessment is that the conservatives don't have another system in theory or otherwise... Just like healthcare, they just want to get rid of things and HOPE that business owners will "do good" by consumers. What we have seen is, whenever an industry is deregulated, there are a lot of profits in the beginning and a lot of lawsuits that come years later.
Perfect example is the deregulation of the rail system. The companies don't keep their promises to maintain the infrastructure if government does not make them do it. So you have small towns like East Palestine who had their area poisoned when the train wrecked.
@@charliekowittmusic Federal judges are at least nominated and confirmed by elected people. Most of these "experts" are hired by career bureaucrats. Their work should be reviewable by the Courts.
great ruling by the courts. not a win for DJT, but for America as a whole.
Ironically, the Supreme Court and Judicial Appointees have way more integrity than Trump.
She's an Ivy League law grad, meaning she's been brainwashed.
No matter which way it's spinned the rules/laws are written only for a certain group.
No. This means that law makers and the president must get congress to pass laws without ambiguity. They must refine existing laws and write new laws that explicitly state what the governtment can do to interfere in private citizen's lives. This single action limits the executive branch's power and overreach.
The Chevron decision was needed to reduce the burden on the courts due to frivolous lawsuits. But the agencies got greedy and overreached their interpretation of the laws. In addition the interpretation of the ambiguous law was being made by non-expert political appointees. What the Supreme Court giveth the Supreme Court can taketh away and the agencies have no one to blame but themselves.
Frivolous? Love Canal was NOT frivolous!
@@Feralfoundry Sadly there were many frivolous lawsuits, Love Canal was not one of them. In many ways the Chevron decision helped clear the dockets for litigation of the real issues. Out of Love Canal disaster a significant number of laws were passed: The Clean Air and Water Acts, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Pesticide Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, etc. The Chevron Deference was decided post Love Canal. In the next 40 years these Acts were extended and extended far beyond the original intent.
I am old enough to have lived 31 years before the Chevron rule was implemented. We still caught polluters, We still caught companies who did things harmful to our environment. We did have pollution laws. We didn't have the huge volume of courts we do today (Per capita) We won wars, fed half of the world and built up our infrastructure. It was far from the wild west! Chevron was an idea to help take the load off of the existing government worker as we grew. It got out of hand, it grew it's own fiefdoms and little despots who invented their own powers.
Yeah but you also didn’t have citizens united making it so it’s legal to bribe officials.
You were also burying the economy the entire time into your own bank accounts. Greedy boomers got us where we are today, period.
Yes, old people know what's best because I the dream of returning to the 50's. News flash geezoid, things change.
@@soda1yes Funny, because his generation had a chance to achieve the American dream. Your generation is sadly screwed.
@@soda1yes I hated the 1950's. In 1966 I got my first car. Life then was good but in 1969 I was in the draft so it evened out.
This is a great thing! ATF perfect example of doing what ever they please making people felons overnight without them knowing. Kudos to the Supreme Court and DJT!
You cheering on a convicted felon tells us everything we need to know about your poor character.
I can’t believe people still don’t see the attacking a political opponent is treason and communism.
@@rampagephoenix1735 I can’t believe people still don’t see the attacking a political opponent is treason and communism.
I can’t believe people still don’t see the attacking a political opponent is treason and communism.
Your a real joke 😂
Except that they arent experts or specialists. ATF is a prime example. EPA overstepped hugely. FDA has seized property. This is a huge win for the american public in general as well as small business owners that are drowning in "regulations" from 3 letter orgs.
As a non-American, it seems as if your country is full of ambiguous laws that very few understood, leading to government agencies being able to do/say as they please. With this ruling, laws now have to be specific with clear lines of jurisdiction, so that agencies can't overstep their enforcement.
It's actually money talks and lobbyist have bribed our Supreme Court as well as many of our Govenors , Senators, and Congressmen. Some of it you can actually look up how much they have taken so you know what they will be supporting. It surely won't be for the people
What are you? A comedian?
During Trump’s four years he dropped lots of regulations!
Guess what?
EVERYONE of those was
◼️ against worker safety and rights
◼️ insults on our public lands/parks
◼️ opened up more way for
corporate greed
◼️ increased out-of-control pollution
into our lands and waterways
Regulations can be pain with the paperwork that slows the system but they are well researched for personal safety, innovations and environmental protections.
Government agencies do not do what they please, they are regulated to investigate, provide guidelines and data, address breaches and act to resolve issues. Time is allotted for corrective action and in cases of noncompliance to impose fines. If matters are a serious safety hazard impacting large populations that is referred up to the command chain leadership for action either addressed by courts or by shutdown.
This SCOTUS decision leaves all action up to bogged down courts which will further overload the courts that will render issues, even serious ones to continue to be a threat, delay resolution and benefit the offending entity to continue the offense compounding negative impacts.
Courts and lawyers specialize in law and will need those of expertise to investigate and be called into court.
So you see-what this decision does is to promote action/resolution delay and favor the offending entities (usually corporations).
This
That's a very reasonable interpretation.
The problem was the Chevron gave unelected people the right to make laws at times completely against us and reality. The created regulations have become so burdensome and extreme for the average citizen who had no say (representation) in the forming of these. If you like someone else controlling your every aspect of your daily life without any accountability, then that is a shame because there are those of us that do not want that. Congress is required to pass laws or agree to regulations which will hold them accountable to the people and this will temper the extremism of those in positions of unelected power positions.
Absolutely this!
unfortunately the uploader already had a framed agenda in mind for this video (and probably could have gotten away with it , if they had been smarter & cut off their video before the last 10 seconds or so)
I am certainly not a 45 admirer in the remotest sense, but this issue/ruling has little to do with him specifically.
Why do conservatives want everything in the hands of corporations?
Does this stop the Evil UN from taking...stealing powers like they plan to do in September. Or the WEF or the WHO ! Then I say BRAVO Supreme Justices!
Congress chose to write laws and also include ambiguity. and judges in 1985 said fine and to avoid use judges doing work lets try letting the bureaucracies decide ambiguities. This was congress and judges being bad.
The problem IS there was an imbalance and a lot of bias put into interpretation. It caused issues and grew into many more problems from an individuals constitutional right and while the EPA likely is not the sole problem other agencies took it upon themselves to insert ideologies into the interpretations and that is dangerous itself.
Chevron basically gave the executive branch the power to legislate. This ended that.
If we want a regulation about where BP can dump its waste, it needs to be passed by Congress, not executive bureaucrats.
And the difference is...?
@@Theomite The difference to that deference, is the democratic process of representation instead of unelected persons handing down unopposed legislation.
There are THREE branches of government, not one.
@@Theomite It is the job of the legislature take laws. Not the job of the executive branch.
The do-nothing MAGA congress members are too corrupt to have such power.
My (sarcastic) point was how can there be a difference when the "executive bureaucrats" and Congress are all corporate agents taking bribes from the same businesses fighting regulation? The office makes no difference in the impotence of the action.
Her take on this is totally off. This case was brought because a fishing family, small business, was being charged $700 per day to fish. Why should any agency have the power to force a small business into bankruptcy by enacting huge fees like that? And I am sure there are plenty of other examples like this of unaccountable agency heads just taking it upon themselves to interpret rules in ways that hurt ordinary citizens.
Don't be disingenuous. The SC took the case because they were gunning for Chevron, just like they were gunning for Roe when they took Dobbs.
And agency heads ARE accountable. They are appointed and confirmed by the people we elect.
No, your take on this is way off. You don’t completely undermine government agencies because they don’t work 1% of the time.
The right-wing pushes policies like this that hurt small family businesses. Then they say “look, government is interfering in small business 😢”
The right thing to do is to reform the process when there are errors. You don’t throw out 40 years of administrative law, and 17,000 precedents, based on one bad example.
@@charliekowittmusic It's not the business of federal agencies to make law, and them getting to determine what vaguely written laws mean is just that. Moreover, it encourages Congress to purposely write vague laws because they know that the agencies will interpret them in the most intrusive way possible. This is like that old saying about the fox guarding the henhouse.
The person in this video misses the fact that our Constitution says Congress is to make law, not a bunch of bureaucrats. And these experts can also be wrong. BTW, she also mentioned that the law basically switches when the party in the White House switches. Surely you can see this is not true rule of law when stuff like that happens.
Why are people like you so concerned that our government be returned to its Constitutional bounds on power?
@@charliekowittmusic And notice how she said that healthcare will be affected. Government isn't supposed to be involved in healthcare, private sector doctors and nurses are. ObamaCare has gotten us far less value and cost us a lot more, and that excise tax in ObamaCare has really hammered the medical device manufacturing industry.
@@Anon54387 lol Why do you trust judges more than actual experts?
She left out the negative impacts that Chevron Deference allowed for. But ok...
Yes!! This being interpreted through the lens of someone who clearly is in favor of Chevron based solely off of their political stance. It’s glaringly obvious!!
The crux of the matter is that a lawyer's domain of expertise lies primarily in the realm of law, not in fields such as medicine, healthcare, environmental science, workplace safety, agriculture, or transportation. These areas fall under the purview of the government, which in turn, relies on the specialized knowledge of professionals within these industries to inform its decisions, rather than on lawyers.
However, the ruling by the Supreme Court has shifted this dynamic. The court has determined that lawyers, specifically judges, are better equipped to be the authoritative figures in these matters, superseding the government's role.
@sageallure There were numerous problems with that. They were not elected officials,they are chosen by the current administration and often abused their positions and their so-called "rules" carried the weight of law. Many weren't even "experts".
There are no negative impacts of this ruling. Unless you’re a swamp creature.
Ok-I’ll bite.
So what are the negative impacts you speak of?
Hallelujah! I don’t agree with SCOTUS often but this is one of the best rulings in decades!
How? How do you believe this?
Definitely to remove the corrupt activity that goes on in child support
The alphabet agencies have been abusing this power for decades. And doing away with Chevron doesn't mean the courts can't defer to goverment agencies, it only says they no longer MUST defer to them.
That’s right. Partisan judges no longer have to listen to subject matter experts. They can now interpret with impunity.
Libs hated Chevron, issued by a conservative court in an era of deregulation, until they realized they could use it to turn agencies into mini legislatures and courts. The reversal of Chevron restores checks and balances and the intended oversight that separation of powers ensures.
👏👏👏
Because of Chevron we have developed into a bureaucratic state/government. Taking away the power from these bureaucratic agencies is good because they represent their interest and not the people's. This is a democratic Republic which is for the people and not the government
It's a wonderful ruling. It will force congress to actually legislate. I look forward to waging law-fare on these mediocre agencies that have blocked progress for too long.
I hope you’re right.
That's dumb bc the Supreme just consolidated all of the power for themselves and if Congress attempts to pass laws to stop them they just rule its unconstitutional they're saying no one can check them.
Climate change protections are effectively dead. This decision will certainly make progress toward our collective heat death.
Law makers now have to not make ambiguous laws to push off onto non-elected officials so that congress can keep more money from donors.
Not to mention a few of these 3 letters were making rules not law that could put a person in jail for decades, they have no constitutional power to do this... they only reason they could was lazy politicians who should have been doing things all along.
The other thing that has been shown is that most of the people in charge of the 3 letters are absolutely not experts in their fields, and had no business making rules (laws)
Well i imagine another toxic super fund clean up is coming to a community near you .From Tacoma Washington to open uranium mines in Colorado to pittsfield Massachusetts the Husatonic river that G. E poluted and who has fought against its clean up for decades. I like clean water and clean air and wild life salmon to insects like the bees that have declined . But yea you have progress at what cost.
I'm sorry but this is about Agencies trying to come up with rules and laws when our Legislative Branch are the ones that should be doing that. This is what's happening with the SEC and Crypto right now. They're overreaching with power and they shouldn't be. If you're a Law Grad student, you should be telling both sides of the story and not just one side of it.
the APA specifically says the courts decide not what chevron said, they really dont teach you anything at school huh
And it is a fantastic ruling to restore a better Separation of Powers between the Branches. There are millions of people who have been victimized by government agencies just 'interpreting' the law for regulations.
And how many millions will be affected without those regulations? Trump rolled back regulations on the rail way, and how many millions of tons of toxic waste went in the ground water, air, etc when that train derailed in Ohio? Those organizations are keeping you from using horse worm medication to treat covid or inject bleach into your veins because it's a disinfectant.
If the court was concerned about separation of power, they wouldn't have just handed the road map for the executive branch to turn to a dictator.
To be fair Congress COULD avoid ambiguous language so leave no room for bureaucrats to act. But instead they passed vague laws, like "EPA may impose any new pollution limts that seem affordable and impose fines in whatever amount that seem reasonable", this is just Congress deciding to give a blank check don't blame the EPA people. The Court is saying don't do that, and if you do then we the judges at the least will decide what this means not a bureaucrat who obeys Biden or Trump.
There are also millions of people who have been victimized by corporations who ignore the law and regulations.
@@Alverant that's because the Supreme Court ruled in favor of citizens united.
The Supreme Court made the correct decision.
1:24 Using the term "experts" to describe all government agency employees with decision-making powers might invite just a wee bit of criticism.
They probably no 😂 more than alot of people.
@@ArtSmosh1274including how to spell. 😂
Especially those appointed by reality TV guys who never knew a thing about politics and puts pawns in place who will bend a knee for you over their country.
the only problem is people not trusting said experts and that is not a fault of the experts that's a fault of a dumbing down of our populus.
Most of the people in government agencies are either too dumb to get jobs in the private sector or too activist to want them. Just watch them testify before Congress and ask yourself what decisions you’d want them making for you.
Why should unelected officials have the power to make binding decisions for everyone? It is more logical for executive agencies to consult Congress to clarify the intent behind the laws it enacts. Laws should be interpreted by the judiciary, not by executive agencies. Simply because an expert claims a particular interpretation is better does not necessarily mean it is lawful or constitutional. Checks and balances are crucial to preserving the integrity of our constitutional republic, protecting individual rights, freedoms, civil liberties, and states' rights. This ensures that no single branch of government, including administrative agencies, can overreach its authority, thereby safeguarding the republic.
It's amazing how the folks who scream the loudest about "our democracy" are decrying a ruling that makes our system more democratic. If a law is ambiguous about something, it's up to Congress to address it instead of an agency interpreting it any way they want. And of course, this Yale law grad didn't get into the particulars of the actual case. It would have illustrated how egregiously agencies have acted under Chevron.
Democrats have never and will never endorse a true democracy. They are tyrants. They think they are the smartest people in the room. Ketanji Brown a Supreme Court Judge can’t define who a woman is coz it’s that “complicated “😂
So wrong in so many ways. Not surprised someone who follows Candace Owen’s and Tucker. Did you like his butt licking of Putin? Wish it had been you?
Actually ambiguity is common in laws, and then a judge has rules of construction and policy ideas that guide the judge to interpret it. Its almost impossible for congress to write 10000 pages of laws and avoid ambiguity. But since 1985 the courts chose to try letting the agencies do this work for them, the judges decided this out of laziness, so lets not blame congress or agencies, it was lazy judges pulling the idea out of thin air and thats why the court now said wait there is no mention of trusting agencies in cases of ambiguity...
@@amyself6678 We can blame the agencies for going overboard and causing Chevron to be revisited. I once read that the EPA was fining companies for not using tech that doesn't even exist yet. The details of the case at hand involved a company being charged $700 per day to monitor itself because the agency lacked the funding to do its job. Chevron was abused and this is the corrective.
Eschew all "chevron" ajudication! THE COURTS should ALWAYS decide and interpret ALL Legal Statute!
There are three branches of government, not four, the purview of interpreting the law lies with the judiciary, the purview of making laws lies with congress, and the bureaucracy has ZERO governing authority. This ruling did nothing more than clarify that.
Dear Yalie, these "experts" are usually recent BA's, MBA's JD's & PhD's who interpret AND MAKE laws without a lick of real life experience - just like you.
After Covid I'd rather not have the CDC in charge of my health anyway ...
Then who...
then don’t go to any facility when you’re sick.
Maybe a doctor who knows my medical history instead of a political bureaucrat in the pocket of big pharma?
@@ennkay726 Just whose pocket do you think the GOP is in? Big pharma. SCOTUS didn’t do this to protect you but to protect big pharma.
@@saturner7799 Anyone.. A traffic cop....A fireman. Anyone but the virus engineers.
I completely support this decision. If Congress wants to use its copious time & energy making these rules - instead of bickering about other co-equal branches & impeaching their officers - that’s fine.
Well these same experts can now present their cases to the Public in Court cases or in Hearings on the Hill. Like a lot of earlier rulings Chevron was decided Wrongly. And the SCOTUS correct that past error. Look if an Expert wants to ban something to stop someone from doing something they are free to send a memo to the House.If it is already in Court the experts can show up and defend their Opinions. So where is the issue??
Because of it we had several problems with Covid 19 and Climate change which all became political and divided the nation.
It's a win read the majority opinion and it is an affirmation of the powers and responsibilities spelled out in the constitution. Listening to those who are for more power to the executive state are gaslighting you from the tenants that make you free.
Thanks!
The majority of lefty idiots on here can’t read they have to be told what to think.
One wonders, then, what you think of the presidential immunity opinion where the Roberts' court has invented broad immunity and granted sweeping new powers to the POTUS that are found nowhere in the Constitution and that the Founders did not intend. If your critique is consistent, the court's ruling in this matter should be appalling to you. But one suspects that you might not object to it at all, and that speaks volumes.
Thank you for your mistake. It spurred me to look up the difference between "tenants" and "tenets". I make that kind of mistake all the time
@@delwood77 spelling and spell correct are my weak points lol
I noticed a new giving your explanation of Chevron you correctly mention the ambiguity not defaulting to the body of government that made such rules and regulations. After explaining that lobbying overturned when giving examples you did not refer to ambiguity, you made it seem as though laws that are clearly defined with no shades of Gray can now be fought based on this ruling and that's not correct. Depending on the situation. This could be a fantastic thing. ATF is running roughshod and making up new terms and violating people's constitutional rights. This rural lake would be very helpful for individual citizens to have their constitutional rights secured
Absolutely the most important decision by the Court this term. Chevron was wrong 40 years ago and that wrong is now righted. The Legislative Branch needs to be more specific when they write Laws and we as citizens should expect that - they can get input from all experts on all sides and craft something that will not be subject to the whims of Executive Branch political winds.
Couldn't agree more. Omnibus bills and thousands of pages of legalese are lazy legislation. Hopefully, the burden this ruling properly restores back to the Legislative Branch will result in smaller, single topic bills.
If you think non elected people should make a law over you and then call it constitutional, you're the oppossor. This woman shouldn't have a degree in constitutional law
DJT said in his first innagural speech, he would give the country back to we the people.
Biden opened the border and gave the country to foreigners, to Garner more votes.
Accountability for authoritarian, unelected officials is back! WIN!
Take a look at the news segment where they had the ATF director on air and he couldn’t dismantle a Glock. Which most law enforcement officers would use but yet he’s supposed be the subject matter expert. Just saying
You are clearly clueless on how management works.
@@jamescampbell4751 WHAT! Management works!? That’s news to me. Clearly that director doesn’t know his job enough to be called an expert. There’s an actual expert then there’s people who pretend to be experts.
Incompetent managers in free markets lose their jobs.
Did you hear youself unelected officals been make rules our legal system doesnt allow that the courts are the decides if its legal or not. And the shouldnt just change based on politics period. It based it in is right or wrong
Yale Law Graduate... so not a practicing attorney. Saying Yale like it something prestigious anymore is laughable. Chevron being overturned put power back in the hands of the people NOT UNELECTED corporate captured bureaucrats
IKR?
I’ve been an attorney for 26 years
“Tell me “law grad” what did I miss?”
YAle DEI gRAD YUZ NO WE IZ PASSIN DA BAR NOW
@@setha360 why are you bringing up DEI?
@@bartonbella3131 …Nothing better to do.
On one hand, the burden of regulation is in the hands of Congress.
On the other hand….See the Citizens United ruling.
@buckeyewill2166 I'll be honest, the country would be better off with a smaller federal govt and stronger state and even stronger city govts.
Thank you for such a detailed explanation of what the United States will look like starting today!!!
I am still waiting for the ICEAGE from the 70s .
I don't know how I did it but before you opened your mouth I already knew what you were going to say.
This is a great ruling for freedom. There is so much abuse of chevron it forced the overturning.
But experts don’t have incentive just because. Game over. Power to the people!!
Could you add to this breakdown the 1946 (?) APA "Administrative Procedures Act" which I am led to believe, places the authority and sole responsibility of resolving oddities and ambiguity of law statues solely on the courts. I do not understand how 1984's Cheveron decision could have been made in light of being directly counter to 1946's APA.
Also I've always been led to believe that for a person to be held accountable for a crime the underlying law of the crime had to be clearly identifiable and understandable to be constitutional. With a law constantly changing with every administration I can't see how anyone could be held accountable to know what the definition of the day is and as such be held in account for an action which could have been perfectly legal the day before for the past 30 years.
I also don't understand how the constitution states that congress makes the law, the administration enforces the law, and the Courts interpret to law squares with Chevon. It seems to me that Chevron gives the administration the power to interpret law, make law, and enforce law... which would seem counter to the corner stone of the constitutions 3 branches of government.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Courts then decided "less cases for us" so judges in lower courts today could only say "sorry, this is dumb but we can't overturn this decision"
In fact, this SCOTUS cited the APA as the reason for overturning the Chevron ruling.
Well played. 😏
Im a poor guy and I love this. The ATF has lost its power to make up rules. Its the EPAs fault our vehicles have gotten bigger and more expensive. Now that Chevron is dead, there are truck makers announcing small truck productions that have starting prices under $10,000. Before Chevron, cheap cars would be impossible. Thank you Loper and US Supreme court.
This is an amazing decision by the supreme court and I am in full support.
You think business owners have your best interest at heart? I have a bridge for sale if you’re interested.
Good these 3 letter agency’s have been unchecked for so long.
This is money back to the people. Less Government is always a good thing.
I'm pretty sure that you were one of those people complaining about inflation, food prices, housing costs, and and some point fuel.
Less government oversight allows grocery stores, gas stations, oil companies, landlords, banks, and mortgage companies to engage in price gouging and predatory practices. Furthermore, decreased government intervention leads to economic recessions that have widespread impacts on the entire population.
When you start feeling the pain of "less government" because of corporate greed, I'm certain you are one of the many that turn around and blame the government for economic conditions.
@@sageallure You should read about the case. A New England fisherman was going to be charged 700 a day because the regulation oversight committee arbitrarily decided it. They didn't have to give a reason. Farmers have been adversely affected by these regulations as well. I'm sorry, but if you trust the government to provide oversight, then I don't know what to say. There are already regulations in place. This just added another layer of bureaucracy, and it ended up being another way for them to make backroom deals with their appointed cronies that benefitted them monetarily.
@@sageallureunregulated corporate greed in the 1800’s lead to prices falling across the economy, and deflation which made worker’s paychecks more valuable.
Corporations don’t create inflation, government does. Corporations have always gouged people as much as they can get away with. The difference is government policy and money printing allows prices across the economy to rise, which is virtually impossible with sound money.
People must really understand the impact of this horrible decision. It's just completely unreal that the Supreme Court the arbiter, The Interpreter and the final say so about regulations developed by experts in their fields to prevent tragic consequences to Consumers workers to everyone who experiences some malfunction malfeasance some Corporation or manufacturer failure to prevent some tragic catastrophe. Thinking especially about horrible accidents that could be prevented or minimized if somebody did the right thing, paid attention like the BP oil spill tragedy Tacoma or workers who are smothered in tragic mudslides or improperly prepared trenches they're working in as I just heard today. Over 200 nearly 300 men killed over the last 10 years in these horrific accidents. This is just going beyond the absurd judicial prudence period the 10th Amendment clearly allows Congress to delegate that which is not spelled out in the Constitution to develop legislation which establishes agencies carry out all kinds of things a regulatory nature that protects consumers in all aspects of our American lives the Supreme Court Justices on in no way experts all the fields that impact our lives and quality of living and to be protected and safe.
The Congress, the legislature, is the only law-making body and it is an elected representative body. It is not the Courts that make law, they only interpret if a law is constitutional. You left that part out. Trump has nothing to do with it.
Agency "Experts" gave us "Safe and Effective".....:( (not safe and not effective)
Kagan is crazy
When you’re rich, they call you “eccentric.” 😉
So government lost some power. It is a good thing
The Executive Branch's overreach was curtailed. As it should have been decades ago.
You just clearly illustrated that your Harvard degree left you clueless.
You just have a problem with authority.... And just searching the internet to find somebody that will agree with you...
You just clearly illustrated that you can read but you can't comprehend.
The presenter graduated from YALE, not Harvard.
Read her intro again.
How can you say that when her Juggs are huge
Laws are supposed to be created by elected officials, not appointed DEI's.
I dont think citizens should be made criminals over night by the opinions of someone who can not be voted out for their actions.
If there are regulations to be made, it's time for congress to get busy, as stated in the constitution.
She sounds like one of those plagiarizing people they warn you about.
Harvard awaits her.
So the ABC departments are the 4th branch of government. I must have missed the lecture in American government class where that was discussed. These agencies are not empowered by the constitution. They can provide input and guidance to three branches of the government listed in the constitution. That would be good. The politicians are to make laws, not the agencies by rules and regulations. The politicians have way too much time on their hands. Let them spend some time reviewing the input from the agencies.
Politicians are the MOST CORRUPT, REVILED, AND UNTRUSTWORTHY PEOPLE ON THE PLANET EARTH!!! PERIOD!!!
It was going to be highlighted in a new season of Schoolhouse Rock before it was cancelled. The title: “4 is a Tragic Number.”
Reagan was the start of EXTREME CAPITALIST, never understood why so many loved this man. HE WAS FOR CORPORATE POWER!
We're still feeling the effects of what Reagan did as president.
he really set us on the road to ruin.
"Trickle down economics" was a joke. It had no basis in reality. "Gush upward economics" is a better name.
Waaahhhh
Because the Demorat before him was horrible. Until Biden came along.
Pretty simple to regulate...just make the appropriate law.
Law grad; but not a lawyer. Keep that in mind; couldn’t pass the bar exam.
Congress is elected to make the laws. Not these politically motivated agencies. The EPA, FDA, OSHA have been operating in a gray area. Hopefully.
A huge step for personal freedom.
Excellent explanation. You stated the point of getting rid of “chevron” exactly. The American people want limited government. We have way too much government. Once a problem reaches crisis proportions the Congress will act and the American people will be served. May “CAFE” be buried deep and in disgrace. It has destroyed the American auto industry. The American people don’t want to be told what cars to buy. May you have a successful career defending the US Constitution exactly as written. Not one word more!🚙
jeezus! Thank you Law Grad for breaking this down. I've been scurrying trying to figure out what the heck the ruling was all about. Straightforward clear and concise. Thank you, ma'am!
Her answers were not Straightforward nor clear or concise. After explaining that lobbying overturned when giving examples she did not refer to ambiguity, she insinuated as though laws that are clearly defined with no shades of Gray can now be fought based on this ruling and that's not correct. I am a practicing Child Welfare Advocate, and Family Law Attorney, Chevron was used by Government agencies like DCFS to make up laws and regulations on the fly and on a case by case basis. Meaning DCFS would commonly "Interpret" the law one way for a child removal case, then later "interpret" the law differently for a child placement case. The overturning of Chevron, will bring this common practice to an end and restore uniformity back into the system, by not allowing Case Workers to "interpret" the law or to change that "interpretation" as they see fit.
@@falkwulf3842 Well. It was good for me!
😬
Chevron deference allowed unelected people in what ever agency to basically create laws. Not their job. Also by interpreting the law they were able to place their spin on it. This decision returns those responsibilities to the congress where they belong.
I mean, why would you let experts on the issue make the rules.
Thanks for the video! After watching about 20 videos on this I had a decent idea about what this was. You summed it up perfectly and earned my subscribe.
Like Fauci? Let’s let the “experts” lock us down.
Because "experts" in this day in age especially could be picked not for their expertise but for any reason, such as their attributes to meet a quota. Or they could just simply be corrupt/have BIG government friends and not be experts at all. Like dr fauci and how him lied about the science of covid (there were none at the time).
Be wary of those who call themselves "experts."
The “experts” who did so well with COVID, education, healthcare… all of the “experts” get rich while their filed gets worse?
@@altratronic true, but there's nothing like complete bedazzled bs and poison from corporations being pumped into yourself and your kids to make you wish there was someone with more experience and skills in figuring out what is actually going on. It's almost like we have EMTs, doctors, police, Fire brigade, etc to show up and help when things go sideways.
Unelected officials making blanket laws affecting hundreds of millions of Americans without a committee or hearings at the whim of their executive branch boss is partially why we are in this current mess. As far as experts go, look at the head of Health and Human services Xavier Becerra, a lawyer. Closest he ever got to the field of health was as a ranking member of a subcommittee,
Congress passes a law that instructs agencies to do certain things. The agencies, then have to take the language of the law that Congress passed and turn it into policy for the agency to follow.
Yes! Trump 2024!
Nothing stopping Congress from clarifying ambiguity... or the Courts to weighing Agency's interpretation against doctor and scientist recommendations from the private sector. This means that political agencies now have to prove their case in court and can't just say "because I said so." Huge win for the American people.
tell me your degree is useless without telling me.
I can agree with the left-wing side of this but what if the agencies which ideally are supposed to serve the public with their expertise, get captured by corporations. If regulatory capture is happening right now, how can we make sure that these bureaucrats are trustworthy and aren’t just sock puppets for corporations wanting to exert control?
For those neighbors of big ag animal waste pits, the destruction of your land & health will no longer get in the way of their profits!
As a black Man, I trust the Supreme Court more than I trust the federal agencies, because they were elected. I don't want the IRS coming up with new laws every year; I want less government. GOD Bless the Supreme Court of Justice
Huge Win for WE THE PEOPLE!!! Congress needs to do their job, and this will force them to do just that !
Exactly, how? The do-nothing congress, 75% of whom have no expertise in anything, will be buried under a mountain of complex issues that they now want to politicize. The current speaker doesn't even know hoe to manage a schedule.
It's not even about Congress. It's about the Judical branch keeping the Executive branch on a leash. The US Constitution working as intended.
The people did not vote for federal agencies to represent them.
This was the biggest need, and they, the Supreme Court, got it right
One big step in dismantling the bureaucratic state.
I'm so glad I found you. Thank you for all you do.
The reason the experts should not be making decisions is not only that they are not elected officials but there is no accountability or oversight from them making up the rules. There are three branches of government the Executive Branch, The Judicial Branch ( Supreme Court) and Congress. With these three branches this is how laws are written and passed. Why should experts have the pen power to do what they want. Let them go be a CEO of a private company. These Department heads have to answer to the American people and it will be done so now that the oversight is back in place since 1982.
I love how everyone is rabid that lobbyists can't install "experts" by means of large sums of money and favors anymore.
The conditioning is real.
Did Clarence Thomas get another RV for this ruling?
Not yet. If he got it before the ruling it would be a bribe and would be illegal. If he gets it after the ruling it's a gratuity and legal. That's one the SCOTUS ruled just last month!
SC also said it's okay for elected officials to take gratuities from companies and constituents, hence making bribery legal. So Clarence is smiling in his new RV. The SC is a joke right now.
Probably an all-expense-paid-trip for him and his insurrectionist wife.
So basically it’s free reign for private corporations to do whatever they want with no fear of the government, if that happens, do you even have a country at that point?
No, it’s not. Don’t let people scare you like that.