By overturning the Chevron ruling, going forward, will judges be required to interpreting the law faithfully without deference to government agencies?

Question

Having watched the power of Congress reduced to nothing, its own in question, and the enormous power now concentrated in the executive branch, the Supreme Court has made an effort to restore a balance of power between the three branches of government. This is an important development. Possibly it will save us from tyranny.

In overturning the Chevron ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that judges must interpret the statutory intent of Congress in passing a statute and not simply defer to regulatory agencies’ interpretations of the statute.

The independence of executive branch regulatory agencies had gone so far that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was making in-house decisions on civil penalties. The Supreme Court ruled that penalties require jury trials, and that the SEC is not prosecutor, judge, and jury.

Justice Gorsuch said that the Supreme Court’s decision takes law out of the hands of the federal branch and places it again where it belongs in the courts’ reading of the legislature’s intent.

ohsheeT · Accepted Answer

There might be a title of a government agency..

But just about every politician is owned by secret society s. They are the filthy rich there's 17 to 20 of them and they are the people that buy our politicians by giving them money to help them in their next re-election and their own that's the reason why they don't have a voice anymore... There's 570 something Federal politicians not one will stand up to be great there's probably 2,000 more regular politicians not one of them will stand up to be great because they're all owned paid. And bought. If you look at our newscasters nowadays news stations all of them they're all owned...

In the old days of good newscaster wanted to be number one so they would go out and research and they would do their job.

Now they sit behind the desk and read a script it's the same with the politicians

gorydetails · Accepted Answer

It was a great ruling.

abc3643 · Answer

This was a bad decision. Chevron Deference was critical to government streamlining. Without it, things will slow down considerably.

I respect Justice Gorsuch and like to listen to his line of questioning in oral argument, this you wrote:

"Justice Gorsuch said that the Supreme Court’s decision takes law out of the hands of the federal branch and places it again where it belongs in the courts’ reading of the legislature’s intent."

is flawed thinking.

Chevron deference existed because the Executive Branch agencies consisted primarily of people who are experts in the field that they were regulating. That's WHY the SCOTUS earlier gave them deference in a court case involving Chevron which is why it is called "Chevron deference".

Now, SCOTUS nullifies the experience of experts in the field working in Executive Branch agencies. Unfortunately, lawyers and judges aren't usually not the best persons to make judgment calls about policies. For instance, do you want lawyers or judges to tell you the best course of treatment for an illness or injury or do you want a physician? You want a physician because, compared to the lawyers and judges, the physicians are the medical experts. This was the root of Chevron deference.

If there was a legal problem, say a company didn't like the rules established by the EPA, then that company's lawyers would challenge the legality of that specific ruling. So, there was no need for change. The lawyers got involved when they needed to but not before it.

Really, what happened - and what has been happening for a while - is that the conservative Supreme Court, perhaps rightfully so, has been saying to Congress "Do your job." Congress hasn't done its job well for about 30 years and has just been a dysfunctional family circus and has simply passed the buck to the agencies to run things.

The problems are: 1) Congress isn't going to change and 2) there are FAR too many things that need adequate regulation and governance that Congress (being made up of mostly lawyers) is ill-equipped to make intelligent, informed decisions.

So, once again, this Supreme Court has fucked up America. This is the #1 reason why I do not vote for the GOP.

Juxtapose · Answer

Let's keep the ball rolling and vote for Donald Trump. More of this will come under him. I am very happy for this ruling because regulatory agencies are bastards.

DrPepper12 · Answer

Congress has cucked itself for the past century. Chevron decision will put ignorant judges in charge of shit they know NOTHING about. The Imperial Presidency by arthur Schlesinger was supposed to be a warning, not a play book!

RoronoaZoro8 · Answer

This is why we should rock the vote this November.

Jennz6 · Answer

Sounds good

By overturning the Chevron ruling, going forward, will judges be required to interpreting the law faithfully without deference to government agencies?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should the government follow court orders or ignore them?

By overturning the Chevron ruling, going forward, will judges be required to interpreting the law faithfully without deference to government agencies?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should the government follow court orders or ignore them?

We're glad to see you liked this post.