The Daily Populous Sunday June 30th, 2024 morning edition
Authored by newrepublic.com and submitted by Quirkie

To Chevron’s defenders, this approach merely formalized what had already been the long-standing practice of the federal courts. Among them at first was Antonin Scalia, who joined the court after Chevron was decided. “Congress now knows that the ambiguities it creates, whether intentionally or unintentionally, will be resolved, within the bounds of permissible interpretation, not by the courts but by a particular agency, whose policy biases will ordinarily be known,” he explained in a 1989 lecture.

Chevron deference also had its fair number of critics in conservative legal circles. Many of them saw the doctrine as an abdication of the judicial branch’s responsibility to interpret the law. Roberts’s decision is replete with references to the importance of the federal judiciary and its paramount role in interpreting statues. “In the foundational decision of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall famously declared that ‘it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,’” he wrote at one point in his opinion.

Because of that criticism, Friday’s ruling came as no great surprise. Most of the court’s conservative justices had already voiced criticism of Chevron deference. They relied on it in fewer and fewer cases and, in some instances, outright ignored it when it would otherwise be relevant. In Loper Bright, the court could have ruled that the agency’s interpretation of the law was not “reasonable,” thereby bypassing questions about Chevron deference itself. There was good reason to believe this: The law in question, for example, explicitly authorized the NMFS to require companies to fund observers in specific circumstances, and monitoring Atlantic haddock populations wasn’t among them.

PhamilyTrickster on June 29th, 2024 at 15:48 UTC »

In the same week they legalized bribery and gave themselves more opportunities to be bribed. What an amazing coincidence!

LexSavi on June 29th, 2024 at 14:35 UTC »

Chaos feels like the goal at this point. This will be like how the “failure” of public schools, following decades of underfunding, is being used to justify privatization of public education.

When the government can no longer deliver public policy objectives, such as environmental and consumer protections, via effective regulatory tools it will become the justification for either eliminating regulatory oversight by, and on behalf of, the public or completely privatizing it altogether.

Just wait until you get the regulatory equivalent of the Donda Academy brought to you by the BP Bureau of Marine Protection or the Ticketmaster Department of Consumer Affairs and Protection.

chelseamarket on June 29th, 2024 at 13:54 UTC »

It’s a rogue court dismantling government institutions to the redcaps benefit. Vote out maga for the survival of the country.