this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
323 points (100.0% liked)

News

23267 readers
3158 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
JonsJava@lemmy.world
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
323
Supreme Court overturns Chevron decision, curtailing federal agencies' power in major shift (www.cbsnews.com)
submitted 4 months ago by TwitchingCheese@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a landmark 40-year-old decision that gave federal agencies broad regulatory power, upending their authority to issue regulations unless Congress has spoken clearly.

top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 80 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Am I crazy for thinking that this is actually worse than the court banning abortion?

At least with abortion bans, people could see the direct impact and that could motivate voter turnout. This will be a decision that many voters won’t easily recognize as the cause of the corruption and injustice they will be feeling. A lot of people are going to get hurt, and they’re not going to know the real reason behind it.

The GOP finally got what they’ve been trying to get since the 80s. Get ready for The Jungle 2.0.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 39 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The GOP finally got what they’ve been trying to get since the 80s. Get ready for The Jungle 2.0.

The GOP wanted Chevron in the 80s. It was a way of tweaking laws passed already without legislative resistance.

In 1981, after Ronald Reagan became President, the EPA changed its interpretation of the word "source" in the law to mean only an entire plant or factory, not an individual building or machine.

[–] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 4 months ago

I mean that's still what they want, absolute control. It's just that as soon as Chevron started working against them, they got rid of it.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

It also opens the door to bribery.

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 61 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Because letting jackasses in congress set regulatory precedent on things they know jack shit about has always worked out

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 44 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The goal is for regulations to be held up via congressional deadlock by the obstructionist party. Can't make a good or bad decision if you can't make a decision at all.

[–] carbonari_sandwich@lemm.ee 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And this is a massive increase in authority for the courts. If there is ambiguity in the wording of a law, it's open for a lawsuit.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 18 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The dissent on the "it's a gratuity, not a bribe lol" decision shows that ambiguity isn't even necessary. Same with the bump stocks ruling. And seceral before that.

The conservatives will pretend there is ambiguity and write pages of rambling pseudo logic no matter how clear the law is.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

Things seemed to be going alright before the Reagan wanted to clarify the language of the Clean Air Act. The Congressional Research Services kinda cover this issue already.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 47 points 4 months ago

THE MULLAHS HAVE SPOKEN ON BEHALF OF ALLAH AND YOU SHALL FOLLOW THEIR PRONOUNCEMENTS!

[–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 42 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Stare Decisis is for losers.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

The decision actually actually mentioned stare decisis on cases decided on the basis of Chevron:

The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite the Court’s change in interpretive methodology. See CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U. S. 442, 457. Mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a “ ‘special justification’ ” for overrulingsuch a holding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

[–] tate@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Dred Scott?

Sometimes precedent is plain wrong.

ETA: not in this instance though. This was a time they should have respected precedent.

[–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 12 points 4 months ago

Yes, an incredibly racist ruling is a great comparison to dismantling the administrative state, removing personal healthcare choices, and regulatory authority.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Dred Scott is the exception that proves the rule.

[–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 3 points 4 months ago

It’s actually not, which makes it a worse response. It wasn’t overturned by a court which is what state decisis applies to (Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions.) Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th & 14th amendments.

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

YOLO court strikes again

[–] Spazz@lemmynsfw.com 32 points 4 months ago

Fucking conservatives

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 27 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This also applies to law enforcement agencies like ice, right? Border patrol? They are all only able to enforce actual laws right?

[–] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 months ago

Yes, but they never followed that shit to begin with.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 23 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There's one way to fix this... elect a landslide blue majority in the HoR and Senate and redefine explicitly the role of every federal agency. That way Republicans in the future can't weaponize doing nothing as easily.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 16 points 4 months ago

Removing the filibuster so those things can be accomplished even if the Republicans have 41 Senators will also be necessary. That is what led to the minor improvements in the ACA instead of actually implementing something better like single payer healthcare.

[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

The Senate map is basically impossible this cycle.

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 21 points 4 months ago (2 children)

You know, eventually, after we've seen enough of this shit, I feel like there's a point we have to ask...will no one rid us of these turbulent justices?

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

no, because they're the supreme court, and they're appointed for life.

[–] timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

But hey, don't vote for Biden because of a bad debate. After all, how much worse can more conservative justices be....

Not directed at you- just in general.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

so true bestie, so true

[–] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I feel the reference went over your head...

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago

yea no it definitely did.

[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

No, because Biden doesn't have the balls to put forward more justices. And yes, he could.

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What gets me is part of Project 2025 is planning on reclassifying all of the workers in the exact agencies this affects with sycophants and yes-men. As I understand it, the entire idea of that move is that Trump and the GOP can bypass Congress and the courts and essentially rule however they want.

Doesn't this decision run counter to that? Instead of allowing the regulatory bodies that are going to be sycophantilized to just run shot over their domains, now the risk having a non-sympathetic judge or an unfavorable swing in voting in Congress?

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 9 points 4 months ago

I think it's for when the law is considered vague, they don't rely on the "experts" in these positions to give an answer they let the SCOTUS decide now.

What project 2025 would want to do is ensure the day to day operations are kept in a "business friendly" manner too so if they control both I guess it's just more ways for them to get what they want. :(

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

thus they can use the do-nothing republican fascists to shoot things down. fuck this goddamn country

[–] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Noice, corporations about to have slaves soon.

[–] DrSleepless@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

Oh boy, we’re fucked.

[–] dezmd@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is pure corruption.

[–] spyd3r@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

No it was pure corruption the way it was. Congress is supposed to write the laws, and the Judicial Branch is supposed to interpret those laws, not the unelected federal bureaucracy.

[–] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ooooo I'm going to get to live in the cyberpunk dystopia that I'm such a fan of after all.

[–] TwitchingCheese@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I hear the mafia is looking for pizza delivery drivers.

[–] kebabslob@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 4 months ago

They did this immediately after Joe flubs the debate. Nobody's afraid of him anymore lol