The Robert's Court is about to become the most Activist Court Ever

1. 87

   My Esotericposted 3 months ago

   The Conservative Robert's Supreme Court is about to assign another long-standing precedent, this one which protects the lives of all Americans, to the judicial graveyard along side the devastating Dobb's decision which took away women's federally protected right to privacy.
   
   In 1984, the Court ruled that because judges are NOT experts in anything but the law, if a decision needed to be made regarding the interpretation of an administrative rule, the agency with the experts who made that rule should be deferred to - so long as the rule was reasonable.  THAT is about to be overturned by this activist Court leaving all sorts of rules designed to protect your and my life subject to being ruled unconstitutional. This was called the Chevron decision.
   
   For example, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts that Justice Gorsuch's mother, as head of Reagan's EPA and was unceremoniously forced to resign by Reagan, fought very hard to kill.  (Gorsuch, at 15, was very upset at the forced resignation of his mother and is now extremely biased against the Chevron Rule and should recuse himself.)
   
   Leonard Leo, head of the Federalist Society which told Trump which people to nominate for the Supreme Court, had two goals in mind: Kill Rowe v Wade and Kill Chevron.  With his nominations it seems he may get his dream fulfilled.
   
   If these conservative Justices rule as expected, get ready for dirty air and polluted water to return to the American scene along with the thousands of women who lives are now at risk because of Dobb's.
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/17/politics … index.html

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

      Interesting case --- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration implemented a Final Rule in 2020 to force fishing companies like Relentless Inc., Huntress Inc., and Seafreeze Fleet LLC, to pay for human at-sea monitors aboard their vessels. Congress never gave the agency authority to launch such a program. This at-sea monitor mandate violates the Constitution’s Article I.
      
      Seems we are seeing more and more people not willing to have the long arm of government dictating their right to make a living without being penalized financially beyond their capacity to make a profit.
      
      Sticky situation, I mean we need regulation regarding the environment, but have they gone to far?

      replyreport
      1. 87

         My Esotericposted 3 months agoin reply to this

         If the Conservative Court rules against the Executive Branch and Congress, the lives of millions of Americans will be at risk.
         
         Effectively, Congress will have to write all the Rules an executive agency creates to carry out the will of Congress into each law.  The environmental laws that you mention will probably be the first to go.  Keep in mind, it was the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts that Gorsuch's mother (and not Gorsuch) was trying to kill.  That was too much for Reagan and he forced her to resign. (and Gorsuch, who should recuse himself, is carrying that bias into his decision-making.)
         
         BTW, did you look into WHY those fisheries were required to carry those monitors?  I just did, and on the face of it, I agree with the fishermen. 
         
         As I see it, the Court has an out.  Chevron requires judges to err on the side of agencies and their experts UNLESS the rule is found not to be reasonable, which, in my opinion, this one is not.  So, all the Justices have to do is follow Chevron and declare the Rule unreasonable and cannot be enforced.

         replyreport
      2. 61

         Willowarborposted 3 months agoin reply to this

         the Supreme Court appears on the precipice of either overturning or limiting the scope of Chevron deference. Once again overturning precedence.
         
         Chevron lets judges defer to federal agencies when it comes to figuring out how to implement a law if there are disputes over how to interpret the language Congress passed. The assumption is that the agency has more expertise on the matter than a federal judge assigned to the case. 
         
         So will SCOTUS shift the power of federal agencies regulatory abilities to themselves, the courts? 
         
         The intent of Chevron  was to limit judges attempting to legislate from the bench.  The Roberts Court appears ready to undermine that.  The court’s ruling could have ripple effects across the federal government, where agencies frequently use highly trained experts to interpret and implement federal laws.  But somehow we are to believe that judges are inadequate replacement for such decisions?
         
         Justice Kagan cited as one example a hypothetical bill to regulate artificial intelligence.  So it would want people “who actually know about AI and are accountable to the political process to make decisions” about artificial intelligence. Courts, she emphasized, “don’t even know what the questions are about AI,” much less the answers"
         
         Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that Chevron allows Congress to delegate policy choices to executive agencies and voiced concerns that “if we take away something like Chevron, the court will then suddenly become a policymaker"
         
         Let that sink in, a body that is not elected by the people, for life will make policy decisions.  That's a hard no for me.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

            Willow,   A critic could argue that the doctrine can lead to government overreach and burdensome regulations that adversely affect industries, making it challenging for them to operate profitably, due to rising regulation costs.  The concern is perhaps rooted in the idea that executive agencies might exceed their authority or interpret statutes in a way that goes beyond what was intended by Congress.
            
            Chevron doctrine may contend that it gives too much deference to administrative agencies, allowing them to interpret laws broadly and create regulations that have significant economic impacts on communities. One could argue for a more restrictive approach, where courts play a more active role in interpreting statutes and overseeing regulatory actions to ensure they align closely with legislative intent.
            
            I can see your point that the Chevron doctrine might well work to strike a balance by acknowledging the expertise of administrative agencies in implementing complex regulatory frameworks. However,  agencies that have a history of blanketing issues.
            
            As I see it,  the debate around Chevron revolves around the trade-off between granting flexibility to agencies for effective governance and the potential risks of regulatory overreach and economic burdens. A big old circle. I am going to admit, I am up in the air on this one. We need expertise to help with decision-making on many issues. But do we need government agencies?  I suppose courts could hear expertise from experts from the private sector. This is a hard one. You got me thinking, you made some good points.
            
            Shar

            replyreport
            1. 87

               My Esotericposted 3 months agoin reply to this

               You said "A critic could argue that the doctrine can lead to government overreach and burdensome regulations that adversely affect industries, making it challenging for them to operate profitably,"
               
               I would point out that industries have been making great profits the entire time Chevron has been in force.  Why would that change??
               
               I can't believe you, of all people, would want Judges and Justices making policy decisions and diminishing the power of Congress to do the job they were elected for.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  Sharlee01posted 3 months agoin reply to this

                  While government regulations on businesses are often implemented with good intentions, it's essential to at best consider the potential negative consequences. One of my concerns is the potential burden on small businesses.  Excessive regulations can in some cases lead to increased compliance costs, making it challenging for smaller enterprises to thrive. One could say it's these kinds of businesses that fall through the cracks. This, in turn, may hinder innovation and economic growth for the middle class. So, I have a problem with that. I find the concept of keeping an economic balance very important.
                  
                  Moreover, stringent regulations may create a barrier to entry for new businesses, limiting competition in the market. Do we seek a rich/poor society?  Reduced competition can result in less incentive for businesses to improve efficiency or provide better services, as they face less pressure to stand out in the marketplace.
                  
                  Another downside is the bureaucratic complexity that comes with numerous regulations. Businesses may find themselves entangled in red tape, diverting resources away from core operations to navigate and comply with complex regulatory frameworks.  This bureaucratic burden can be especially challenging for startups and entrepreneurs.
                  
                  Additionally, overregulation may stifle entrepreneurial spirit and risk-taking. When businesses are overly constrained by rules, they may become risk-averse, hindering the development of innovative solutions and impeding overall economic dynamism.
                  
                  I am sort of on the fence on this one. I think there is good and bad.
                  
                  Another thought, does our Congress not blanket issues, and many end up under a blanket that could smother their business?
                  
                  This is a hard one...

                  replyreport
                  1. 87

                     My Esotericposted 3 months agoin reply to this

                     But again, for as long as Chevron has run, small businesses in America have not suffered as a result.  Why should it begin now?
                     
                     Businesses, small or large have been hurt periodically, but not because of over regulation (with exceptions, of course). They have only been hurt by things like:
                     
                     - the oil embargo during the Nixon - Ford administrations,
                     
                     - the stagflation and recession at the beginning of Reagan's term
                     
                     - the recession at the end of Reagan's term and the beginning of Bush I's term
                     
                     - the recession at the end of Clinton's longest economic expansion up to that point in American history and the beginning of Bush II's term.
                     
                     - the Republican 2008 almost Depression,
                     
                     - the Covid recession at the end of Trump's term.
                     
                     Not once did the Chevron precedent hurt small business.
                     
                     I think the Court should simply find this particular regulation unreasonable,  which Chevron provides for, and let it go at that.
                     
                     "does our Congress not blanket issues," - not sure what that means.
                     
                     I think one needs to go back to the fundamental reasons regulations exist - stop or minimize the hurt one entity can do to another.  For example, regulations against discrimination.  Regulations to keep the free market system free. (A truly free market will devolve into monopoly and oligopoly.
                     
                     In this case I am guessing that the fishermen have overfished which deprive others of an income.  Had this not been the case, then there would have been no reason to put human monitors on board ship.  To me, that is reasonable.  What I find unreasonable is making the fishermen pay for it.

                     replyreport
2. 87

   My Esotericposted 3 months ago

   After this vote, I am firmly convinced that Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh would NOT have ratified the Constitution had they been given the chance.
   
   This was an easy decision to side with the federal gov't over Texas' move to replace the federal gov't's authority with its own regarding the national border.  Greg Abbott, Texas governor, in my opinion, attempted to secede from the Union.
   
   "Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said that while the order is a victory for the Biden administration, the delay in issuing it raises future questions.
   
   “Whatever one thinks of current immigration policy, it ought not to be that controversial that states cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law – lest we set the stage for Democratic-led states to similarly attempt to frustrate the enforcement of federal policies by Republican presidents,” Vladeck said. “That four justices would still have left the lower-court injunction in place will be taken, rightly or wrongly, as a sign that some of those longstanding principles of constitutional federalism might be in a degree of flux.”
   
   MAGA has gotten one step closer to dissolving the Union.
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/22/politics … index.html

   replyreport
3. 87

   My Esotericposted 2 months ago

   It looks like (although one can never tell) the Supreme Court will not take the big government stance Conservatives want by allowing Texas and Florida to do away with the 1st Amendment rights of social media platforms and many other things by logical extension.
   
   https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour … 4a5e335545

   replyreport