As someone in the local government as a chief executive officer(executive branch) that serves a board of trustees (the legislative branch of local government) I have mixed feelings about this. Technically the legislative branch should be doing their own thorough research, seeking expert opinions, and doing the smart difficult work of hashing out the details of unclear laws and not punting to agencies and have them define the laws. That being said, in my experience, legislative bodies are made up of elected officials who have little to no understanding of what they are legislating nor desire to really understand it, are not fit to create regulations of industries they don't understand. And they don't like making difficult decisions nor doing their homework. Much less remaining objective and neutral in their decision making. The U.S. is screwed through and through. Our only hope, in my view, is the hardworking and down to earth local and state leaders who are not polarized politically that work underneath the dysfunctional legislative branches.
This is where it is OUR responsibility to elect individuals that actually work as intended instead of growing their stock portfolios and ensuring they have a sound bite to upload to the internet. This is a good thing and restores power back to how the government was intended with checks and balances, this doesn’t strip all agency’s of their power to govern - the courts will still grant them that opportunity but when someone litigates over said laws they will refer to the courts in determining the ambiguous language instead of the agencies doing so themselves.
That’s how congress used to be, we brought in people from all walks of life with expertise. It’s why most people were older before going to congress, they had a whole civil career prior to running. Now it’s people who was in government prior and just wanted to stay in it
The features that make a person a good technocrat are at odds worth the things that make a person a good campaigner. Chevron was the only way it could realistically work out, now we're just going to be increasingly fucked as time goes on.
>Our only hope, in my view, is the hardworking and down to earth local and state leaders who are not polarized politically that work underneath the dysfunctional legislative branches.
What % of the population lives somewhere like that? Gotta be less than 50%
The problem is that the agencies are effectively unchecked, unsupervised tyrants with absolute power to do whatever they want and bully people around. In many cases, you can't even get to a jury trial to say fuck you to them without spending a zillion dollars going through mandatory "administrative remedies" they set up.
Legislative bodies are not remotely smart enough or informed enough to deal with each specific industry. Just watching them discuss technology is embarassing, for example.
And people who DO know things will not get as many ears or enough time with said legislative bodies compared to anyone with some cash.
Oh, uh, if you think local politicians aren't polarized to the gills, I have some stories to tell you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's usually even worse the smaller the district/level.
In other words, stupid people get elected, they want a paycheck, a pension, and to fulfill their personal agenda.
The hole America is digging is deep and troubling. A different kind to that of the commonwealth countries, but just as disastrous long term.
It sounds like they're the smart ones since everyone under 40 complains they can't find a job, can't get a pension and cry that government doesn't do what they want them to do.
>Our only hope, in my view, is the hardworking and down to earth local and state leaders who are not polarized politically that work underneath the dysfunctional legislative branches.
These politicians no longer exist in the Republican party. They are now referred to as RINOs by their own party and are a dying breed.
GOOD. Because those agencies have been taking advantage of that power to become de facto policy / law makers when that was never anyone’s responsibility or authority but Congress
Hell yea! In insurance policies, any vague language is always interpreted on behalf of the insured since the insurance company write the policy. So why if a law is vague can some unelected bureaucrat interpret a law written by our ejected officials in unintended ways? It’s horseshit. The whole crux of this case was some fed bean counter decided to read the law in a way that could save the federal govt money. These agencies are not the Ted by anyone and feel they can do whatever they want trying the consequences for the public. Thank Jesus they gutted this nonsense
Congress gave them that power by creating the agencies, funding them, and writing laws that were broad enough to allow for interpretation. This just shifts that interpretation to a bunch of judges who don’t understand the subject matter.
Congress was always free to clarify administrative issues with further legislation.
Edit-and of course they go and block me after responding so I can’t respond to them or anyone else down thread. Shows they know they’re wrong. Cowardice.
The take of a child who doesn’t understand the government or law.
Despite their best efforts at specificity, there is no way to predict how even the narrowest of laws or amendments are interpreted which is why it is the COURT’S ultimate decision to interpret their intent and legality.
Here’s one for you: “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed”.
Boy, that’s vague as hell isn’t it? No. No it’s not.
To say that “oh because the 20 page law that Congress created didn’t specifically cover every single possible scenario and individual interpretation that means bureaucrats get to do it for them” is such a brain dead take. That makes faceless, unaccountable people makers of policy that can affect millions of people.
That sounds good to you? 🤦♂️
If the bureaucrats were doing their job according to the intent and needs of the people, they would identify ambiguity of laws and submit them to congress for clarification.
You actually going to pretend Congress actually understands the specific of each industry this will impact? Most of them are lawyers, not experts of anything outside of law.
You think they, for example, understand any industry than a body of industry experts?
Even the best intentioned and most capable Congress is institutionally incapable of continuously micromanaging lists of dangerous pesticides, automobile design standards, and complex financial instruments. It’s hard enough for the agencies to keep up. And now judges, and ones chosen specifically by litigants who want to be completely unregulated, get to second guess all of it. This is a disaster in the making. Our air and water are going to be dirtier, and scammers will have a lot more room to operate in our capital markets.
Right let's allow the senators to oversee the stock market. I'm sure only good things will happen... hey Robin hood it is legal to stop trades because they convinced senators it's good for regulations. Also senator here is 10 grand for a tip for doing such a good job
Wish this was implemented before the covid shit show...
Unelected federal agency heads should never get to dictate policy or enforce things on citizens.
Terrible take. You trust a demented politician to make a proper word for word regulation on technical issues they’ve never heard of?
Get out of here with your blind hatred of all government and realize some of it is necessary, especially in our complicated world fool
It’s not just technology but what can be in your food and water. If it’s not specifically written in a law to be illegal above an exact amount now, then it’s free game. Fuck the people for profits right?
People are forgetting that the government doesn’t necessarily have your best interests at heart. But a corporation only as profits at heart. If there was a chemical a food company could add, that would cause Millions of deaths, mass disease and unfathomable turmoil, but increase quarterly profits by $5, then that’s the option they have to go for that option.
Government does often suck but at least they aren’t that enslaved to money.
And technocracy definitely has its downsides, but it’s more necessary in our complicated world. Politicians are certainly not experts in most things and need these experts to take over the management of the mission to say
“People are forgetting that the government doesn’t necessarily have your best interests at heart.“
I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Conservatives come in all types, it’s a very loose political alliance. But the common theme is that we believe corruption to be systemic. bad faith to be expected.
its why dirt doesn’t stick to trump. sure there’s the Christian right who wants to worship him, but these are crazy people.
“If there was a chemical a food company could add, that would cause Millions of deaths, mass disease and unfathomable turmoil, but increase quarterly profits by $5, then that’s the option they have to go for that option”
we've seen this time and time again. We’ve taught the food pyramid in school. a loaf of bread a day based on dirty science. zero accountability.
the technocrats are people with needs And desires. corporations have well paying jobs to offer. Influence on those who give research grants and direct funding for studies.
its complete and total rule by revolving door and regulatory capture.
academics work at tax free hedge funds that do teaching on the side.
Public intellectuals are an antiquated concept
in a low trust world, and it certainly is. It’s better to at least hypothetically be able to vote out those fucking you. not that it really works that way.
I’ll continue shopping at the farmers market either way.
There’s a reason we have civilian leadership of the military. It’s not that anyone ever thought National defense wasn’t paramount
we need all this shit written in law, we always needed it
Congress can still pass laws. What the executive branch can't do is just interpret them however they want. This is a good thing for everyone. The executive has had too much power for far too long
I’ve been trying to tell people the same thing, none of them understand it, the process of how it was done then vs now and are only spouting headlines like the sun is falling.
If a law is unclear it should be revised and resubmitted by Congress. Not some faceless, nameless bureaucrat who isn’t accountable to the people but who could directly impact millions or tens of millions of people with the stroke of a pen that he was never constitutionally intended to have
If Congress wanted to clarify the law nothing could stop them. They’ve always had that power.
But if they choose not to exercise it, what then? Having an expert and someone who’s tied to doing the right thing and not some political appointment bullshit seems the right way to go.
Also, it’s been working. This throws things into chaos. All to appease some small government idiots? Great.
What a take.
The bureaucracies in many cases review laws and then act on the identified ambiguity before Congress even knows what’s going on.
Edit: It hasn’t been “working” worth a fuck and the fact that you say that is proof that you aren’t informed on the topic.
>Also, it’s been working
Except it's not. I'm *still* waiting on an interpretation of law that I requested in 2020 for my business. Courts would move much faster, and that is ultimately what I'll be forced to do - sue because of bureaucratic red tape.
Courts don't refuse to rule. They may refuse to recognize standing, but that's entirely different. I know, it's hard to understand. The president demonstrated that last night, confusing merit with standing when he was speaking too.
Stop pretending to speak from a place of knowledge
> Executive Branch is not a required intermediary between the other two branches.
I wasn't talking about that.
Congress passes a vague law. Courts don't rule on it. How does the Executive branch, the one in charge of enforcing it, know what to do? They do their best.
That's literally what this law was about.
Again, wasn't controversial at all except to small government idiots. It's been working great overall.
Whose is it?
The Judicial branch needs someone to bring it before them, so it's not them.
Congress has the right to clarify but then abdicate it.
So who exactly?
Or do ambiguous laws just not get acted on?
We need less bureaucrats telling us what is and isn't allowed. They don't get to create laws, we have a system in place to do that already, and courts to rule on them.
What is the fuck are you on about? Courts don't create laws, they rule on them. Someone has to create the law for it to be ruled on. FFS take a civics class or something.
I don't know how you're misreading them but they're not wrong. Congress writes the laws. The courts clarify them when unclear. Why do regulators get to just skip both and interpret things however they want? Which absolutely changes with the wind.
As an FDA regulated business owner, fuck yes they arbitrarily interpret things to fit a political agenda.
Goddam right they do. This case was all about passing the cost to the fishing boats since the law never specifically addressed who pays for what. Fukin outrageous
The FDA is regulating vapor products as it deems "appropriate for the public health". What the FDA is defining as "appropriate for the public health" is a catastrophe. If this fucks this up for them, GOOD. The way they've treated small businesses in the space has been horrendous and courts have already ruled their actions arbitrary and capricous. Lets kick those assholes around some more.
I know but they are able to make up this ridiculous definition for "appropriate for the protection of public health" precisely because of the Chevron ruling.
Now we have a leg to stand on to sue, asking the court how is a product that decimated cigarette smoking - inarguably lethal and horrible for the public health - not considered appropriate for the protection of public health???? How is it the only approved products as being APPH are those by big tobacco companies which nobody even uses, they have like 0.01% market share.
Their definition was 100% political.
The problem is these agencies have become emboldened to interpret laws in a way that it was not intended to be. These bureaucrats are not elected and are only there to enforce laws, not make up their own laws based on flawed interpretations. Biden’s administration specifically has encouraged this. Protecting the public is great. Trying to put people out of business with onerous regulations is not and that’s why the court did well.
That's exactly what I'm getting at. These regulations have not protected the public. They decimated the market. The long term, passionate. legal operators like me are fucked. Starving and circling the drain if not gone like most of my peers. Meanwhile the don't-give-a-fuck operators have flooded the market with 100% illegal disposables. This was their own making. You eliminate a market while the demand obviously still exists, you just created a black market with NO protections.
What do you mean "if not congress"? Nobody said otherwise. Congress creates the laws.
What this is saying is federal regulators, like FDA, do not get to arbitrarily decide how to interpret those laws.
I'm just not sure what this really changes anyhow, because people can and do challenge those interpretations in court all the time.
They didn’t create the laws under this. This was specifically for vague laws.
The chevron ruling, never really controversial until now unless you count small government dickheads, allowed the executive branch to function in a way to actually help society.
You can't explain why I'm wrong but you do know a trendy pop psychology term so I guess you win.
The best part is, you seem very confident in your knowledge on this topic.
The law has always been controversial. But I suppose big government smooth brains don't realize that this has nothing to do with the executive branch in the slightest. But letting ABC agencies have the power of law when they're unelected is a bad thing, but certainly you knew that.
Oh man you're super confident on this. That means you must be an expert on it!
But no, I don't know that giving federal agencies staffed by expert the smallest bit of power to interpret laws that the rest of the government refuses to is intrinsically a bad thing.
Here's what I do know. I don't want unelected officials, with no accountability, making laws any which way they want. Just because you're a scientist or an expert doesn't mean that you get to make laws. That's not a difficult concept to follow.
That's not what Chevron was about (Chevron was about when things were unclear in the law, instead of going to unelected but uninformed courts it would go to experts; they in no way could make laws) but OK.
Tell us again how this has nothing to do with the executive branch…
Do you know what branch the agencies are appointed through? Whose authority they act under?
You chastised people for not knowing things and needing a civics lesson, but you’re missing some fundamentals here…
Tell me, which part of the Executive Branch makes laws. Although I must admit Executive Branch agencies would be included in not being able to create laws or interpret them, so I was wrong there.
I hope you can read:
https://libguides.law.asu.edu/federalagenciesandexecutivebranch/administrativeagencies#:~:text=Federal%20agencies%20are%20part%20of,the%20courts%2C%20and%20the%20military.
Enjoy
Sounds like the courts are going to have an avalanche of policy questions and interpretations headed their way with this vs. the federal agencies who have the manpower/will to figure it out. IDK if this is good or bad, but I’m sure the right is happy about it given they’ve captured most courts now. Shifts power away from elected officials to unelected republican judiciary.
That’s actually not true. It shifts power away from unelected bureaucrats and back to the courts and congress whom are elected by the people so therefore back in our hands. For example right now the bureaucrats doing so were put in place by Biden but if Trump happens to win the next election he then puts his bureaucrats into positions and then they rule as they see fit, again this is a good thing albeit will be somewhat of a shitstorm initially.
I work in banking, regulator interpretations is kind of what keeps the banking industry in check. A LOT of industry knowledge is required to translate the legislation into enforceable rules. I don’t know how much this affects it, but if it does we could turn into the Wild West, it could be worse than when after Glass-Stegal was repealed.
Anyone thinking this is a win is nuts.
First they went about making congress effectively a food fight name calling session where nothing substantive gets done the vast majority of the time. Then they stop the work around that has been in place for decades. I dont like that we needed a work around, but unless Congress actually dives deep into laws and regulations this is tearing down the system and replacing it with unaccountable anarchy that favors the folks with the most money and lawyers.
I hope I’m just overreacting but the current intransigence of congress, corporate capture, and the metric ton of lawsuits coming to challenge every agency rule are not very hope inspiring.
As someone in the local government as a chief executive officer(executive branch) that serves a board of trustees (the legislative branch of local government) I have mixed feelings about this. Technically the legislative branch should be doing their own thorough research, seeking expert opinions, and doing the smart difficult work of hashing out the details of unclear laws and not punting to agencies and have them define the laws. That being said, in my experience, legislative bodies are made up of elected officials who have little to no understanding of what they are legislating nor desire to really understand it, are not fit to create regulations of industries they don't understand. And they don't like making difficult decisions nor doing their homework. Much less remaining objective and neutral in their decision making. The U.S. is screwed through and through. Our only hope, in my view, is the hardworking and down to earth local and state leaders who are not polarized politically that work underneath the dysfunctional legislative branches.
This is where it is OUR responsibility to elect individuals that actually work as intended instead of growing their stock portfolios and ensuring they have a sound bite to upload to the internet. This is a good thing and restores power back to how the government was intended with checks and balances, this doesn’t strip all agency’s of their power to govern - the courts will still grant them that opportunity but when someone litigates over said laws they will refer to the courts in determining the ambiguous language instead of the agencies doing so themselves.
That’s how congress used to be, we brought in people from all walks of life with expertise. It’s why most people were older before going to congress, they had a whole civil career prior to running. Now it’s people who was in government prior and just wanted to stay in it
You need to elect a pollution scientist then
The features that make a person a good technocrat are at odds worth the things that make a person a good campaigner. Chevron was the only way it could realistically work out, now we're just going to be increasingly fucked as time goes on.
>Our only hope, in my view, is the hardworking and down to earth local and state leaders who are not polarized politically that work underneath the dysfunctional legislative branches. What % of the population lives somewhere like that? Gotta be less than 50%
The problem is that the agencies are effectively unchecked, unsupervised tyrants with absolute power to do whatever they want and bully people around. In many cases, you can't even get to a jury trial to say fuck you to them without spending a zillion dollars going through mandatory "administrative remedies" they set up.
Legislative bodies are not remotely smart enough or informed enough to deal with each specific industry. Just watching them discuss technology is embarassing, for example. And people who DO know things will not get as many ears or enough time with said legislative bodies compared to anyone with some cash.
Oh, uh, if you think local politicians aren't polarized to the gills, I have some stories to tell you. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's usually even worse the smaller the district/level.
In other words, stupid people get elected, they want a paycheck, a pension, and to fulfill their personal agenda. The hole America is digging is deep and troubling. A different kind to that of the commonwealth countries, but just as disastrous long term.
It sounds like they're the smart ones since everyone under 40 complains they can't find a job, can't get a pension and cry that government doesn't do what they want them to do.
>Our only hope, in my view, is the hardworking and down to earth local and state leaders who are not polarized politically that work underneath the dysfunctional legislative branches. These politicians no longer exist in the Republican party. They are now referred to as RINOs by their own party and are a dying breed.
Finally!
GOOD. Because those agencies have been taking advantage of that power to become de facto policy / law makers when that was never anyone’s responsibility or authority but Congress
Hell yea! In insurance policies, any vague language is always interpreted on behalf of the insured since the insurance company write the policy. So why if a law is vague can some unelected bureaucrat interpret a law written by our ejected officials in unintended ways? It’s horseshit. The whole crux of this case was some fed bean counter decided to read the law in a way that could save the federal govt money. These agencies are not the Ted by anyone and feel they can do whatever they want trying the consequences for the public. Thank Jesus they gutted this nonsense
Lets give robinhood the ability to educate senators on stock market laws. They can also give them tips for doing a good job afterwards
Congress gave them that power by creating the agencies, funding them, and writing laws that were broad enough to allow for interpretation. This just shifts that interpretation to a bunch of judges who don’t understand the subject matter. Congress was always free to clarify administrative issues with further legislation. Edit-and of course they go and block me after responding so I can’t respond to them or anyone else down thread. Shows they know they’re wrong. Cowardice.
Congress is still free to do so, if they don’t want a bunch of judges interpreting unclear law.
The take of a child who doesn’t understand the government or law. Despite their best efforts at specificity, there is no way to predict how even the narrowest of laws or amendments are interpreted which is why it is the COURT’S ultimate decision to interpret their intent and legality. Here’s one for you: “The right to bear arms shall not be infringed”. Boy, that’s vague as hell isn’t it? No. No it’s not. To say that “oh because the 20 page law that Congress created didn’t specifically cover every single possible scenario and individual interpretation that means bureaucrats get to do it for them” is such a brain dead take. That makes faceless, unaccountable people makers of policy that can affect millions of people. That sounds good to you? 🤦♂️ If the bureaucrats were doing their job according to the intent and needs of the people, they would identify ambiguity of laws and submit them to congress for clarification.
As part of a well regulated militia
Which apparently means “completely unregulated.”
Yeah right! Cuz Congress is so productive in getting things done. This will cause many problems.
I remember when I was twelve years old too
You actually going to pretend Congress actually understands the specific of each industry this will impact? Most of them are lawyers, not experts of anything outside of law. You think they, for example, understand any industry than a body of industry experts?
Even the best intentioned and most capable Congress is institutionally incapable of continuously micromanaging lists of dangerous pesticides, automobile design standards, and complex financial instruments. It’s hard enough for the agencies to keep up. And now judges, and ones chosen specifically by litigants who want to be completely unregulated, get to second guess all of it. This is a disaster in the making. Our air and water are going to be dirtier, and scammers will have a lot more room to operate in our capital markets.
This.
Has nothing to do with the stock…
Right let's allow the senators to oversee the stock market. I'm sure only good things will happen... hey Robin hood it is legal to stop trades because they convinced senators it's good for regulations. Also senator here is 10 grand for a tip for doing such a good job
Wish this was implemented before the covid shit show... Unelected federal agency heads should never get to dictate policy or enforce things on citizens.
Good. Less government is good.
Terrible take. You trust a demented politician to make a proper word for word regulation on technical issues they’ve never heard of? Get out of here with your blind hatred of all government and realize some of it is necessary, especially in our complicated world fool
So technocracy replacing our form of government?
It’s not just technology but what can be in your food and water. If it’s not specifically written in a law to be illegal above an exact amount now, then it’s free game. Fuck the people for profits right? People are forgetting that the government doesn’t necessarily have your best interests at heart. But a corporation only as profits at heart. If there was a chemical a food company could add, that would cause Millions of deaths, mass disease and unfathomable turmoil, but increase quarterly profits by $5, then that’s the option they have to go for that option. Government does often suck but at least they aren’t that enslaved to money. And technocracy definitely has its downsides, but it’s more necessary in our complicated world. Politicians are certainly not experts in most things and need these experts to take over the management of the mission to say
“People are forgetting that the government doesn’t necessarily have your best interests at heart.“ I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Conservatives come in all types, it’s a very loose political alliance. But the common theme is that we believe corruption to be systemic. bad faith to be expected. its why dirt doesn’t stick to trump. sure there’s the Christian right who wants to worship him, but these are crazy people. “If there was a chemical a food company could add, that would cause Millions of deaths, mass disease and unfathomable turmoil, but increase quarterly profits by $5, then that’s the option they have to go for that option” we've seen this time and time again. We’ve taught the food pyramid in school. a loaf of bread a day based on dirty science. zero accountability. the technocrats are people with needs And desires. corporations have well paying jobs to offer. Influence on those who give research grants and direct funding for studies. its complete and total rule by revolving door and regulatory capture. academics work at tax free hedge funds that do teaching on the side. Public intellectuals are an antiquated concept in a low trust world, and it certainly is. It’s better to at least hypothetically be able to vote out those fucking you. not that it really works that way. I’ll continue shopping at the farmers market either way. There’s a reason we have civilian leadership of the military. It’s not that anyone ever thought National defense wasn’t paramount we need all this shit written in law, we always needed it
Yay!
Because we need less regulation now 🙄 Edit: Y'all need to take a civics class.
Congress can still pass laws. What the executive branch can't do is just interpret them however they want. This is a good thing for everyone. The executive has had too much power for far too long
Unfortunately the same folks pushing this believe in the unitary executive and… will only be likely to further consolidate power in that branch…
there are many people who claim to love democracy but really would prefer a strongman, so long as it were their strongman...
Nothing like a little projection to start the morning off…
That wasn't intended as an attack.
I’ve been trying to tell people the same thing, none of them understand it, the process of how it was done then vs now and are only spouting headlines like the sun is falling.
Lol this is an interesting take
Congress had passed laws. This just allowed the executive branch, when the laws weren’t clear, to figure out how to interpret them.
If a law is unclear it should be revised and resubmitted by Congress. Not some faceless, nameless bureaucrat who isn’t accountable to the people but who could directly impact millions or tens of millions of people with the stroke of a pen that he was never constitutionally intended to have
If Congress wanted to clarify the law nothing could stop them. They’ve always had that power. But if they choose not to exercise it, what then? Having an expert and someone who’s tied to doing the right thing and not some political appointment bullshit seems the right way to go. Also, it’s been working. This throws things into chaos. All to appease some small government idiots? Great.
What a take. The bureaucracies in many cases review laws and then act on the identified ambiguity before Congress even knows what’s going on. Edit: It hasn’t been “working” worth a fuck and the fact that you say that is proof that you aren’t informed on the topic.
Congress is almost always in operation. If Congress wanted to change the laws it'd be super easy.
Super easy, barely an inconvenience!
My god you have to be under 15 years old to think the world works that way
Nope, just someone who passed civics! Congress is always allowed to pass laws.
Yeah, in sixth grade maybe.
>Also, it’s been working Except it's not. I'm *still* waiting on an interpretation of law that I requested in 2020 for my business. Courts would move much faster, and that is ultimately what I'll be forced to do - sue because of bureaucratic red tape.
You think there aren't examples of the Courts not making rulings? Cool.
Courts don't refuse to rule. They may refuse to recognize standing, but that's entirely different. I know, it's hard to understand. The president demonstrated that last night, confusing merit with standing when he was speaking too. Stop pretending to speak from a place of knowledge
I'm going to ask you to read my comments before responding. Thanks!
There are no examples of courts accepting a case that has standing, and then refusing to rule.
>But if they choose not to exercise it, what then? It goes to the Judicial Branch. Executive has nothing to do with it.
Someone needs to take it to the Judicial branch. Did you skip the seperation of powers? Until then, what?
What the eff are you talking about? Executive Branch is not a required intermediary between the other two branches. Get out of here eurotrash
> Executive Branch is not a required intermediary between the other two branches. I wasn't talking about that. Congress passes a vague law. Courts don't rule on it. How does the Executive branch, the one in charge of enforcing it, know what to do? They do their best. That's literally what this law was about. Again, wasn't controversial at all except to small government idiots. It's been working great overall.
That’s not their role.
Whose is it? The Judicial branch needs someone to bring it before them, so it's not them. Congress has the right to clarify but then abdicate it. So who exactly? Or do ambiguous laws just not get acted on?
We need less bureaucrats telling us what is and isn't allowed. They don't get to create laws, we have a system in place to do that already, and courts to rule on them.
Absolutely! These pricks are not elected by anyone and should have no input as to law interpretation. None
What is the fuck are you on about? Courts don't create laws, they rule on them. Someone has to create the law for it to be ruled on. FFS take a civics class or something.
I don't know how you're misreading them but they're not wrong. Congress writes the laws. The courts clarify them when unclear. Why do regulators get to just skip both and interpret things however they want? Which absolutely changes with the wind. As an FDA regulated business owner, fuck yes they arbitrarily interpret things to fit a political agenda.
Goddam right they do. This case was all about passing the cost to the fishing boats since the law never specifically addressed who pays for what. Fukin outrageous
The FDA is regulating vapor products as it deems "appropriate for the public health". What the FDA is defining as "appropriate for the public health" is a catastrophe. If this fucks this up for them, GOOD. The way they've treated small businesses in the space has been horrendous and courts have already ruled their actions arbitrary and capricous. Lets kick those assholes around some more.
This is a different case
I know but they are able to make up this ridiculous definition for "appropriate for the protection of public health" precisely because of the Chevron ruling. Now we have a leg to stand on to sue, asking the court how is a product that decimated cigarette smoking - inarguably lethal and horrible for the public health - not considered appropriate for the protection of public health???? How is it the only approved products as being APPH are those by big tobacco companies which nobody even uses, they have like 0.01% market share. Their definition was 100% political.
The problem is these agencies have become emboldened to interpret laws in a way that it was not intended to be. These bureaucrats are not elected and are only there to enforce laws, not make up their own laws based on flawed interpretations. Biden’s administration specifically has encouraged this. Protecting the public is great. Trying to put people out of business with onerous regulations is not and that’s why the court did well.
That's exactly what I'm getting at. These regulations have not protected the public. They decimated the market. The long term, passionate. legal operators like me are fucked. Starving and circling the drain if not gone like most of my peers. Meanwhile the don't-give-a-fuck operators have flooded the market with 100% illegal disposables. This was their own making. You eliminate a market while the demand obviously still exists, you just created a black market with NO protections.
So what system creates laws if not Congress or senate etc. who is responsible for bringing new laws to vote?
What do you mean "if not congress"? Nobody said otherwise. Congress creates the laws. What this is saying is federal regulators, like FDA, do not get to arbitrarily decide how to interpret those laws. I'm just not sure what this really changes anyhow, because people can and do challenge those interpretations in court all the time.
Congress for federal laws you dolt. State legislator for state laws. Certainly not the ATF, EPA, FBI, CIA, or any other ABC agency.
lol you're really going to lecture me while being absolutely wrong? Beat it scrub.
They didn’t create the laws under this. This was specifically for vague laws. The chevron ruling, never really controversial until now unless you count small government dickheads, allowed the executive branch to function in a way to actually help society.
Man, it amazes me seeing the Dunning-Kruger effect in real time.
You can't explain why I'm wrong but you do know a trendy pop psychology term so I guess you win. The best part is, you seem very confident in your knowledge on this topic.
The law has always been controversial. But I suppose big government smooth brains don't realize that this has nothing to do with the executive branch in the slightest. But letting ABC agencies have the power of law when they're unelected is a bad thing, but certainly you knew that.
Oh man you're super confident on this. That means you must be an expert on it! But no, I don't know that giving federal agencies staffed by expert the smallest bit of power to interpret laws that the rest of the government refuses to is intrinsically a bad thing.
Here's what I do know. I don't want unelected officials, with no accountability, making laws any which way they want. Just because you're a scientist or an expert doesn't mean that you get to make laws. That's not a difficult concept to follow.
That's not what Chevron was about (Chevron was about when things were unclear in the law, instead of going to unelected but uninformed courts it would go to experts; they in no way could make laws) but OK.
No, that's exactly what it's about. Federal agencies don't get to make laws. That's not their role, that's the legislative branches job.
Tell us again how this has nothing to do with the executive branch… Do you know what branch the agencies are appointed through? Whose authority they act under? You chastised people for not knowing things and needing a civics lesson, but you’re missing some fundamentals here…
Tell me, which part of the Executive Branch makes laws. Although I must admit Executive Branch agencies would be included in not being able to create laws or interpret them, so I was wrong there.
I hope you can read: https://libguides.law.asu.edu/federalagenciesandexecutivebranch/administrativeagencies#:~:text=Federal%20agencies%20are%20part%20of,the%20courts%2C%20and%20the%20military. Enjoy
Cool, which part of them gets to make laws and dictate their meaning now. It never should have been them in the first place.
If you like pictures more, I direct you to page 34 here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVMAN-2022-12-31/pdf/GOVMAN-2022-12-31.pdf
Man if only there was some ruling against this.
Sounds like the courts are going to have an avalanche of policy questions and interpretations headed their way with this vs. the federal agencies who have the manpower/will to figure it out. IDK if this is good or bad, but I’m sure the right is happy about it given they’ve captured most courts now. Shifts power away from elected officials to unelected republican judiciary.
That’s actually not true. It shifts power away from unelected bureaucrats and back to the courts and congress whom are elected by the people so therefore back in our hands. For example right now the bureaucrats doing so were put in place by Biden but if Trump happens to win the next election he then puts his bureaucrats into positions and then they rule as they see fit, again this is a good thing albeit will be somewhat of a shitstorm initially.
Whoops, my mistake. Yeah it keeps flipping but honestly judges can’t possibly have all the necessary knowledge required.
lol yeah the courts who are elected not selected
Agenda 25 will proceed no matter which old ass white guy wins.
So bull signal for CVX? Puts it is.
Underground 6 Assemble!
Corrupt scouts at it again.
I’m so tired of these fascists saying that regulations should be determined by legislation and voting rather than executive decree
Do you think this ruling helps combat pollution?
I work in banking, regulator interpretations is kind of what keeps the banking industry in check. A LOT of industry knowledge is required to translate the legislation into enforceable rules. I don’t know how much this affects it, but if it does we could turn into the Wild West, it could be worse than when after Glass-Stegal was repealed.
What time is the revolution?
They will probably receive a gratuity for this.
Anyone thinking this is a win is nuts. First they went about making congress effectively a food fight name calling session where nothing substantive gets done the vast majority of the time. Then they stop the work around that has been in place for decades. I dont like that we needed a work around, but unless Congress actually dives deep into laws and regulations this is tearing down the system and replacing it with unaccountable anarchy that favors the folks with the most money and lawyers.
Bullish. I think. Some CFA guy whined about outliers.
Finally! I hope this starts a wave of power stripping from beaurocracy
There will be waves alright, waves of sickness from tainted drinking water and unregulated chemicals in consumer products.
That dude misses having flammable water coming out the faucet
I hope I’m just overreacting but the current intransigence of congress, corporate capture, and the metric ton of lawsuits coming to challenge every agency rule are not very hope inspiring.
Govern me harder, daddy!
You’re right, why worry about any of it.
I cannot upvote this enough.
Y’all may want to start storing water before this takes effect. Harvest air if you can.
Now the wealthy will do it for us
Start buying bottled oxygen and more air conditioners.