06-30-2024, 04:57 PM
A long time ago, certain thinkers and people got together and decided that ANY laws which affect ALL citizens must be a faithful representation of the will of the governed. To that end, the specifics of laws was deferred to a legislation of the people's duly elected representatives, thus ensuring that they would not be 'edicts' of the 'royal' kind... immune to dissent, and any resistance was automatically considered criminal, extending to even a seditious nature.
So those people were comforted when the laws of the land were, in fact, only imposed because the citizens actually were the progenitors.
From ArsTechnica: SCOTUS kills Chevron deference, giving courts more power to block federal rules
Then came the "regulatory" games. Agencies, led by political appointees, began to impose controls on commerce, behaviors, and even free-speech... because that was their bailiwick. Except one thing. No one voted for them, no one empowered them to craft law, and whomever they represented, it could never be said to be "the citizens."
Soon, as activists became "political appointees" we began to suffer a new kind of soft-oppression. In the case of the "Chevron" precedent (also called the Chevron deference) the US courts became incapable of challenging agency conduct in governance because they (and their political supporters) declared that their rulings were "unchallengeable" as long as they were "reasonable." The 'deference' to the agency in question was thus established as a precedent... making any challenge 'extraordinary.'
Chevron gave agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous laws as long as the agency's conclusion was reasonable. But the (US Supreme Court Justice) Roberts court said that a "statutory ambiguity does not necessarily reflect a congressional intent that an agency, as opposed to a court, resolve the resulting interpretive question."
"Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron's presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do," the ruling said. "The Framers anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment. Chevron gravely erred in concluding that the inquiry is fundamentally different just because an administrative interpretation is in play."
This is especially critical "when the ambiguity is about the scope of an agency's own power—perhaps the occasion on which abdication in favor of the agency is least appropriate," the court said. The Roberts opinion also said the Administrative Procedure Act "specifies that courts, not agencies, will decide 'all relevant questions of law' arising on review of agency action—even those involving ambiguous laws," and "prescribes no deferential standard for courts to employ in answering those legal questions."
This is about power. Agencies - manned by political appointees - now must face the ultimate test... they must face the objections to their "edicts" in court... no longer "assumed" to be 'just' simply because it's the EPA, the FCC, or the NIH, etc. For several generations, these agencies have essentially been allowed to "make law" outside the Congress and Senate... who are the only people in our government who are actually mandated to have that exclusive authority.
In a larger sense, "Agencies" have been allowed to craft 'governance.' That has to stop. They are agencies, not rulers. This power-drift has been crippling the healthy relationship between the people and the government. It has allowed 'activism' and other forms of bias to have direct leverage over the framework of relationship between the citizens (the source of ALL law) and government (whose role is to serve.)
Dissenters are vainly trying to 'reframe' the problem as one of "power." Which is of course, natural since it is "they" who are "losing" power.
The Roberts court ruling "flips the script: It is now 'the courts (rather than the agency)' that will wield power when Congress has left an area of interpretive discretion," Kagan wrote. "A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris."
Kagan wrote that the court in recent years "has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies," substituting "its own judgment on workplace health for that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; its own judgment on climate change for that of the Environmental Protection Agency; and its own judgment on student loans for that of the Department of Education."
The dissent is weak and political. The main flaw being that the US Supreme court does NOT make law. It interprets is application and viability in terms of our established rights and Constitution. As such, allowing politically-led agencies to establish 'process and procedure' must be addressable by some means not solely within the 'domain' of the agency itself. It's called 'checks and balances' and was intentionally included within the framework of our governance because of the potential for political, or private abuse.
Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge criticized today's ruling, saying that it "grounds judicial superiority over the legislative and executive branches by declaring that the Constitution requires judges to unilaterally decide the meaning of statutes written by Congress and entrusted to agencies."
The SCOTUS does not ever "unilaterally" decide what statutes mean. Instead they measure the statues applicability in terms of the Constitution and Legislators' stated intent.
The dissenters' complaints are about their losing power (granted circumstantially) (as usual)... not "power' being 'taken' by the SCOTUS. In fact... the legacy of "portraying the SCOTUS as a "power" institution is a "marketing" ploy used nearly exclusively by those who "lose" power...
It made me recall when the abdication of responsibility by the legislation over so-called 'abortion rights,' which led to the errantly effected Roe v. Wade case. The SCOTUS KNEW that such "power" to establish law DOESN'T belong in the court... it belongs in the legislation... but look how THAT was marketed... Politics, right?
Now the analogous betrayal of purpose is highlighted in the case that US Agencies are struggling to KEEP the power political expedience offered them, rather than accept the citizens should have a voice, and thus the ability to confront some of their policies. This is the interface between the governments' agencies and the citizenry, which to them means little, but to us can often manifest itself in facing fines and punishments from agencies, in the name of the government, when you know damn well that the government isn't where their policy is coming from. Judicial experience recognizes the abuses that have, and are, happening... That is the place where the court must place a fence. Here it is.
Now, let's listen to them sizzle, and mischaracterize the issue to deflect from their abuses and, dare I say it, "plans within plans."
Neither the EPA nor any Agency may make law. Ever. It's considered a "Constitutional issue" with good reason.
I might suggest that the most powerful and vociferous dissenting voices you hear will be self-identifying as 'protectors of the NEW status quo,' with all that implies.
Some very significant regulatory powers are poised to be used maliciously.
This had to be done. "Chevron" had to go.
So those people were comforted when the laws of the land were, in fact, only imposed because the citizens actually were the progenitors.
From ArsTechnica: SCOTUS kills Chevron deference, giving courts more power to block federal rules
Then came the "regulatory" games. Agencies, led by political appointees, began to impose controls on commerce, behaviors, and even free-speech... because that was their bailiwick. Except one thing. No one voted for them, no one empowered them to craft law, and whomever they represented, it could never be said to be "the citizens."
Soon, as activists became "political appointees" we began to suffer a new kind of soft-oppression. In the case of the "Chevron" precedent (also called the Chevron deference) the US courts became incapable of challenging agency conduct in governance because they (and their political supporters) declared that their rulings were "unchallengeable" as long as they were "reasonable." The 'deference' to the agency in question was thus established as a precedent... making any challenge 'extraordinary.'
Chevron gave agencies leeway to interpret ambiguous laws as long as the agency's conclusion was reasonable. But the (US Supreme Court Justice) Roberts court said that a "statutory ambiguity does not necessarily reflect a congressional intent that an agency, as opposed to a court, resolve the resulting interpretive question."
"Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron's presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do," the ruling said. "The Framers anticipated that courts would often confront statutory ambiguities and expected that courts would resolve them by exercising independent legal judgment. Chevron gravely erred in concluding that the inquiry is fundamentally different just because an administrative interpretation is in play."
This is especially critical "when the ambiguity is about the scope of an agency's own power—perhaps the occasion on which abdication in favor of the agency is least appropriate," the court said. The Roberts opinion also said the Administrative Procedure Act "specifies that courts, not agencies, will decide 'all relevant questions of law' arising on review of agency action—even those involving ambiguous laws," and "prescribes no deferential standard for courts to employ in answering those legal questions."
This is about power. Agencies - manned by political appointees - now must face the ultimate test... they must face the objections to their "edicts" in court... no longer "assumed" to be 'just' simply because it's the EPA, the FCC, or the NIH, etc. For several generations, these agencies have essentially been allowed to "make law" outside the Congress and Senate... who are the only people in our government who are actually mandated to have that exclusive authority.
In a larger sense, "Agencies" have been allowed to craft 'governance.' That has to stop. They are agencies, not rulers. This power-drift has been crippling the healthy relationship between the people and the government. It has allowed 'activism' and other forms of bias to have direct leverage over the framework of relationship between the citizens (the source of ALL law) and government (whose role is to serve.)
Dissenters are vainly trying to 'reframe' the problem as one of "power." Which is of course, natural since it is "they" who are "losing" power.
The Roberts court ruling "flips the script: It is now 'the courts (rather than the agency)' that will wield power when Congress has left an area of interpretive discretion," Kagan wrote. "A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris."
Kagan wrote that the court in recent years "has too often taken for itself decision-making authority Congress assigned to agencies," substituting "its own judgment on workplace health for that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; its own judgment on climate change for that of the Environmental Protection Agency; and its own judgment on student loans for that of the Department of Education."
The dissent is weak and political. The main flaw being that the US Supreme court does NOT make law. It interprets is application and viability in terms of our established rights and Constitution. As such, allowing politically-led agencies to establish 'process and procedure' must be addressable by some means not solely within the 'domain' of the agency itself. It's called 'checks and balances' and was intentionally included within the framework of our governance because of the potential for political, or private abuse.
Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge criticized today's ruling, saying that it "grounds judicial superiority over the legislative and executive branches by declaring that the Constitution requires judges to unilaterally decide the meaning of statutes written by Congress and entrusted to agencies."
The SCOTUS does not ever "unilaterally" decide what statutes mean. Instead they measure the statues applicability in terms of the Constitution and Legislators' stated intent.
The dissenters' complaints are about their losing power (granted circumstantially) (as usual)... not "power' being 'taken' by the SCOTUS. In fact... the legacy of "portraying the SCOTUS as a "power" institution is a "marketing" ploy used nearly exclusively by those who "lose" power...
It made me recall when the abdication of responsibility by the legislation over so-called 'abortion rights,' which led to the errantly effected Roe v. Wade case. The SCOTUS KNEW that such "power" to establish law DOESN'T belong in the court... it belongs in the legislation... but look how THAT was marketed... Politics, right?
Now the analogous betrayal of purpose is highlighted in the case that US Agencies are struggling to KEEP the power political expedience offered them, rather than accept the citizens should have a voice, and thus the ability to confront some of their policies. This is the interface between the governments' agencies and the citizenry, which to them means little, but to us can often manifest itself in facing fines and punishments from agencies, in the name of the government, when you know damn well that the government isn't where their policy is coming from. Judicial experience recognizes the abuses that have, and are, happening... That is the place where the court must place a fence. Here it is.
Now, let's listen to them sizzle, and mischaracterize the issue to deflect from their abuses and, dare I say it, "plans within plans."
Neither the EPA nor any Agency may make law. Ever. It's considered a "Constitutional issue" with good reason.
I might suggest that the most powerful and vociferous dissenting voices you hear will be self-identifying as 'protectors of the NEW status quo,' with all that implies.
Some very significant regulatory powers are poised to be used maliciously.
This had to be done. "Chevron" had to go.
