Supreme Court poised to end ‘constitutional revolution’ that’s marred US governance for 40 years

NYPost ^ | 1/14/24 | Thomas M. Boyd

[CFW]

When Justice John Paul Stephens issued his 1984 opinion in Chevron U.S.A. v. National Resources Defense Council, he started what legal scholar Gary Lawson later called “nothing less than a bloodless constitutional revolution.”

At long last, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear two cases that may signal the beginning of the end to that revolution.

Article I of the Constitution explicitly directs that “All legislative Power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,” not regulatory agencies.

Yet Justice Stephens’ opinion found that “agenc[ies] may . . . properly rely upon the incumbent administration’s views of wise policy” in “reasonably” defining statutory ambiguities.

The legal doctrine that Chevron spawned became known as Chevron deference and former President Ronald Reagan’s White House counsel, Peter Wallison, pointed to it as “the single most important reason the administrative state has continued to grow out of control.”

[snip]

Both are companies that fish for herring in New England and are family-owned and -operated, and both are subject to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs fishery management in federal waters.

The act allowed the National Marine Fisheries Service to require herring boats, relatively small vessels that normally carry only five to six people, to also carry federal monitors to enforce of its regulations.

As a next step, however, and without any express statutory authorization, the NMFS decided to require Loper Bright and Relentless to also pay the salaries of these monitors, estimated by the NMFS to be $710 per day, an amount that can exceed the profits from a day’s fishing.

[SuperLuminal]

Whoops!
Thx for the correction...
Old age strikes again...☹

[Revel]

“I worry about Amy Barrett and Kavanaugh on this one though.”

Exactly. Those are two hacks that won’t want to give up their power to “legislate” politically on so many different regulations that are enacted without representation. If they follow the constitution then the entire regulatory structure of the US changes overnight. Tons of existing so called “Laws” From all of those federal departments would go away just like that. So they will not follow the constitution.

[unread]

How, in all creation, could such a law come into existence.? And why would it take all these years to kill the horrible thing.?

[lepton]

Although that was an awful decision, it was fun the day it was issued with Democratic Underground cursing all the Republican Supreme Court justices who voted for it before they realized that the decision came from the Democrats on the court. Then they went into a flurry of cognitive dissonance.

---

The absolute hysteria blaming it on the right was indeed amusing for quite some time as they ran back and forth trying to decide whether to condemn it or justify it.

[rottndog]

How, in all creation, could such a law come into existence.?

It can't...it's merely a dictate by the courts, creating legislative power in the Executive branch. It violates the very first sentence in the Constitution, AI Section 1. There is no legitimate argument that a court decision can override the most fundamental aspect of the Constitution.

[LurkedLongEnough]

Have been reading how leftists are trying to force Justice Gorsuch to recuse himself from the Chevron deference case due to his long term friendships with the oil company management.

Besides the friend relationship lefties' main complaint was that millions of Americans are employed by the fed govt, like that is an argument. Precisely. And boo hoo. I bet some will be collecting a paycheck while they try to disrupt Trump's next administration.

They will try anything to hold on to power for the administrative state.