this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
755 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

58009 readers
3007 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The downfall of Chevron deference could completely change the ways courts review net neutrality, according to Bloomberg Intelligence’s Matt Schettenhelm. “The FCC’s 2024 effort to reinstitute federal broadband regulation is the latest chapter in a long-running regulatory saga, yet we think the demise of deference will change its course in a fundamental way,” he wrote in a recent report. “This time, we don’t expect the FCC to prevail in court as it did in 2016.” Schettenhelm estimated an 80 percent chance of the FCC’s newest net neutrality order being blocked or overturned in the absence of Chevron deference.

Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has made no secret of her ambitions to use the agency’s authority to take bold action to restore competition to digital markets and protect consumers. But with Chevron being overturned amid a broader movement undermining agency authority without clear direction from Congress, Schettenhelm said, “it’s about the worst possible time for the FTC to be claiming novel rulemaking power to address unfair competition issues in a way that it never has before.”

Khan’s methods have drawn intense criticism from the business community, most recently with the agency’s labor-friendly rulemaking banning noncompete agreements in employment contracts. That action relies on the FTC’s interpretation of its authority to allow it to take action in this area — the kind of thing that brings up questions about agency deference.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] amanda@aggregatet.org 175 points 2 months ago (7 children)

I’m not an American but my impression is the Supreme Court is mainly designed as a last bulwark to ensure the US never under any circumstances ever does anything remotely good and this isn’t exactly improving that impression.

[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 121 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It's simply an institution meant to interpret laws and their legality. All of that goes out the window when the people in said institution are politically charged, corrupt, or make bad arguments.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 43 points 2 months ago

Corrupt doesn't even begin to describe it these days. They ruled recently that they are legally allowed to accept bribes, so long as the bribe comes after the decision is made.

The laws of the United States of America are literally for sale by conservative judges. This breach of justice is actively dismantling a cornerstone of our countries successful history.

Oh, the irony, that the "conservative" party is the one radically destroying the highest court in America. Their supporters can wave all the flags they want this week, but what they represent is actively destroying this country.

It's FOR the people BY the people, not for the highest bidder. at least, that's how it used to be before Trump's presidency.

[–] BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (3 children)

You said “or” there when really it should be “and”

[–] sorghum@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 months ago

Considering the context, I took it as an inclusive or.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

Ironic considering everything they're "overturning" is former Supreme Court rulings that granted all these rights.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

To be consistently evil you need checks and balances. This is the system at work.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 122 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The truth is the winners have already won, and no one else ever will. They do not intend to make the American Dream obtainable for anyone but Those Approved.

It's a big club. You aren't in it. I'm not in it. everyone you or I know isn't in it. You know when your in it, because you benefit from this. If you will likely lose benefits, like all of us will, you aren't in the club.

How do you fight those in power uninterested in giving up that power?

You take it from them.

[–] archon@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago

I miss you George Carlin.

[–] fukurthumz420@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (4 children)

The truth is the winners have already won

this. it's all a big game and there are only winners and losers. good and evil are just ideas. if you believe in something, you go for the throat to make it reality. otherwise, you're just a loser on the internet bitching about it. more of you need to wake up to this fact.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 73 points 2 months ago (4 children)

The first time I saw a headline about this, just saying that the Supreme Court overturned "the Chevron doctrine" my initial thought was that I have no idea wtf they did but if the votes went 6-3 I know it can't be anything good.

Much to my consternation I appear to have been right.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 38 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

I've known this was coming for years. Once Goursich was added it was known to those watching the courts exactly what would happen.

Before one of the hosts did the typical "become an unwanted sexual advance asshole" like everyone seems to become after they gain some fame, Opening Arguments podcast was a great way to learn about how depressing our future will be.

It's absolutely fucking disgusting that no matter what the outcome SHOULD be, you can almost always call how this court will go simply by asking "what benefits the ultra wealthy and what have conservatives wanted forever?"

[–] JackiesFridge@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Yup, that Open Args deep dive into chevron deference was an eye opener and called this one years ago. Sucks AT turned out to be That Guy.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

My perspective having known about Chevron before Friday is that while this is a big development for admin law people seem to be overstating the impact it will likely have. Agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc can still make rules as before now courts just have to judge arguments on interpretation impartially, like they did before the SCOTUS made the doctrine in the 80s aiding Reagan. The SCOTUS hasn't even applied it since 2016.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 68 points 2 months ago (3 children)

This sucks ass. It’s hard to not become blackpilled from Friday’s rulings.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Is there a word to be People's Will pilled? Cause that's where I'm heading.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Audacious@sh.itjust.works 67 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Some thing needs to keep the court in check and remove the bad apples.

[–] ulkesh@lemmy.world 58 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It’s called Congress. Too bad they are made up of spineless, greedy pieces of shit to do anything about any of this.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

This is why the right came for Chevron, they can buy Congress. Much harder to buy a whole agency.

[–] fukurthumz420@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (4 children)

the american people are just as spineless. anybody could open up a few seats. all it takes is a little patience and planning. those of you waiting on a corrupt system to fix itself are the biggest dipshits on the planet.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Every judge is a bad apple. Just fossilized cultists in robes judging everybody else.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 47 points 2 months ago (2 children)

the us will be a true shithole in about a decade.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 26 points 2 months ago

the us will be a true shithole in about a decade.

Will be?

I haven't had any interest in visiting the place since Bush was president.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 46 points 2 months ago (9 children)

The illusion of democracy has entirely worn off. When are we taking to the streets with guns?

[–] fukurthumz420@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

don't take to the streets. take to the dark web. be smart. don't be a mob. know which targets bring the most results. clandestine and precise. once upon a time, we had very smart people at the helm of the internet. i fear those people don't exist any more.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 39 points 2 months ago
[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 33 points 2 months ago

I feel like I'm living in the prequel to The Handmaid's Tale

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 25 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It totally makes sense to have a bunch of elected non experts go through the minutae of federal departments and how to implement policy. /s

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Think you meant non elected.

But the point is that policy decisions aren't to be made by courts or agencies. They are to be made by an elected legislature, informed by the Congregational Research Services. To ensure the separation of powers.

Then the Executive agencies are to be tasked with enforce of the law. And if conflict should arise in the understanding of the law the judiciary is to interpret the law. And while judges are not experts in everything they are the experts in statutory interpretation.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 20 points 2 months ago (2 children)

They become less "supreme" with every decision anymore

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 19 points 2 months ago (6 children)

But both sides are the same.

God damn it, i wish Clinton had won so bad. It would be the exact opposite and corporations wouldn't be getting this free reign. Fuck.

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 57 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I wish Gore had won, every other headline wouldn’t be about the impending climate doom and what we’re not doing to stop it

Oh wait, he DID win and the fucking court stole it

[–] marx2k@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Don't forget that 3 of the current justices (Barrett, roberts, kavanaugh) were on bush's legal team in 2000 Bush vs Gore

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (35 children)

I wish the democrats didn’t force her, the candidate that was predicted to be weakest against Trump and the only one likely to lose, through the primary with every trick they could. The democrats tried to skew and steer their own voters and we all lost because of it.

load more comments (35 replies)
[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 7 points 2 months ago

TBH with how Obama treated Netanyahu versus Trump admin backing single state solution: I bet the war on the Gaza Strip wouldn't be happening, either. Not at the same scale, at least.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Clinton is super pro-corporate, what are you on about? She was unelectable and never should've run, she's directly responsible for Trump.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] vodkasolution@feddit.it 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

United enShittification of America

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Omega_Man@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What does stare decisis mean? Asking for 6 justices.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›