Court ruling on whether courts should have more power. There goes checks and balances
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
186 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19229 readers
2215 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Don't forget, that SCOTUS also gave themselves the right of judicial review out of thin air.
Isn't the line "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it"? The Executive Branch is literally the enforcement arm of the Federal Government. I think they kinda have the upper hand vs. the Judicial Branch.
Just make a decision and enforce it. Let the Judicial Branch tie itself in knots worrying about it.
Chevron deference is absolutely critical for a functioning government in the modern era, which is precisely why the republicans hate it
Fun fact: Chevron deference emerged from the Reagan era conservative movement, and was originally used to justify giving federal agencies leeway to waive regulations as part of the Reaganite push for freer markets.
Neil Gorsuch's mom ran the EPA during this time and was part of this Chevron deference-enablef deregulatory push.
The reason why conservatives shifted on Chevron is because they no longer believe in governance and aren’t willing to pretend. They used to pretend they cared about governing. Now they acknowledge they only care about outcomes in the end justify the means sense
Headline is NOT about Chevron the company, but Chevron the legal decision.
Shit title
It's originally about Chevron the company lol. The original Supreme Court case that set the modern precedent was Chevron (the company) vs. Natural Resources Defense Council. That case allowed the EPA to do things like determine safe levels for things like lead in water, particulate matter in air, etc. without explicitly having a whole ass court argument over each and every number that they wanted to set.
Overturning the original Chevron case will literally dismantle the entire regulatory process in the United States.
There is room to overhaul Chevron, reducing the degree of deference, without completely reversing it. Chevron isn't particularly great law when it comes to a corrupt or incompetent eexecutive agency like Ajit Pai's FCC.
You may wish to fix your typo: Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council - Natural not National
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.%2C_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council%2C_Inc.