Posted on 05/05/2023 5:05:09 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
What if I told you the Supreme Court often does too little, not too much? That accusation usually comes from liberals who see the judiciary as philosopher-kings enacting social justice over and against the will of a bigoted public. But a conservative case exists for making the same accusation, just on different grounds. For the Right, the court has abdicated too much of its power to the administrative state, letting its interpretations of law function over and above the justices’ constitutional power.
That abdication may be ending. On Monday, the justices added to their docket Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The case concerns commercial fishing companies that object to a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service. Under the rule, fishing companies must pay the monitors legally required to observe these companies and make sure they are in compliance with federal regulations. The fishing companies argue the agency does not have the authority to make the regulation.
hat all might seem rather mundane, even boring, to anyone not involved in the lawsuit. However, to decide the case, the court might strike hard at the administrative state, having agreed to reconsider one of the most important administrative law cases on record — Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
That 1984 decision has been at the heart of the judicial abdication to government agencies. It concerned what courts should do when a law appears ambiguous in its meaning about a particular matter. In response, it established what is known as “Chevron Deference.” The doctrine requires courts to defer in those ambiguous instances to government agencies and allow the bureaucracy to interpret the statute so long as the interpretation is “reasonable.”.....
room for some level of deference to bureaucrats on deeply technical matters, especially on matters of health and the environment.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Thant god we have Smilin’ John Roberts guiding the Supreme Court ship.
You're right there.
There is very little about environmental laws that is technical - it's mostly based on emotion, conjecture and fantasy.
They like to pretend it's science, but let science discover a fact that upends their world, and all hell breaks loose.
That’s a ridiculous criticism. Did you understand the argument?
The author made it clear in the whole piece that such a potential deference would only be a very limited exception.
This was an excellent explanation of why our federal behemoth is out of control and what SCOTUS can do to rectify it.
.
“That’s a ridiculous criticism. Did you understand the argument?”
So you are OK with unelected officials continuing to control waterways (including a farm pond), increasing regulations on fossil fuels to force so called clean energy, etc.
And I should have included letting them continue to control heath as stupid. Just look at this whole COVID scam, and now pushing gender reassignment on minors.
I stand by what I wrote.
Indeed, but how will they enforce such a ruling?
Yes. As long as the Legislative and Executive Branch work together, the Judicial Branch has no real power to limit them. It can basically write strongly worded letters, but nothing more. If the Democrats retain control of the Legislature and the White House (they intend to) then they can do whatever they want.
YOU WROTE:”So you are OK with unelected officials continuing to control waterways (including a farm pond), increasing regulations on fossil fuels to force so called clean energy, etc.”
Calm down, buddy. Where did I say I was ok with that crap?
Maybe you should try t understand the English language before going on a mindless tirade.
“Limited exceptions” means exactly what it says. In any judicial ruling having to do with such matters the court must allow for such things.
It will be a half assed ruling at best.
Here is the entire sentence in question: “There still might be room for some level of deference to bureaucrats on deeply technical matters, especially on matters of health and the environment.”
I fail to see “Limited exceptions” in that sentence, or the rest of the paragraph. The two key English language terms I see are “some level of deference” (which does not necessarily mean limited) and “especially on matters” which IMHO means extra deference, areas where I believe the bureaucrats really need to be reigned in.
And you also don’t see quotation marks “ “ on what I said.
That’s because I wasn’t quoting him directly but interpreting the meaning of what he said.
And what he said was “some level”. Not all levels. Just some. Which clearly means limited.
And limited is precisely what the SCOTUS needs to do to ratchet down the abuses. It’s a process. Like the eventual overturning of Roe. Or the measured expansion of 2nd Amendment rights with Bruen.
The pendulum swings slowly. That’s how our system works.
The Roberts court usually makes micro adjustments rather than sweeping change. There are exceptions.
I spent my career as an engineer interpreting, evaluating, adhering, and understanding government regulations, requirements, guidelines, etc. And words mean something.
Is total deference a “level of deference”? In my world and understanding of English, it is. Added to that is where the courts “especially” need to defer to the bureaucrats. I don’t believe the sentence in question means “limited”.
Obviously we don’t understand English the same way.
This Loper case, in a sane world, is a no brainer. Bureaucrats should not be making law. Period.
Over decades, legislators just got lazier and lazier and just settled into “let the agency make the rules, I’m busy”. Predictably, for bureaucrats, they abused their power.
What could go wrong?
Presidential Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has stated his intention to use the courts to dismantle many of the admin state. Want to get rid of several agencies. Reduce the Fed by 90%.
It was valid criticism but left out the deference to health “experts”. We’ve seen during the covid issue just how political and not technical the experts are. Fauci, Briks the CDC etc were not following science but political policy. So there should be no deference to the administrative state.
Hopefully this sets up a Wickard vs Filburn takedown!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.