this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
273 points (96.3% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3091 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Four justices appeared absolutely determined, on Wednesday, to overrule one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in the Court’s entire history.

Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council (1984) is arguably as important to the development of federal administrative law — an often technical area of the law, but one that touches on literally every single aspect of American life — as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was important to the development of the law of racial equality. Chevron is a foundational decision, which places strict limits on unelected federal judges’ ability to make policy decisions for the entire nation.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during Wednesday’s arguments, Chevron forces judges to grapple with a very basic question: “When does the court decide that this is not my call?”

And yet, four members of the Supreme Court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — spent much of Wednesday’s arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce speaking of Chevron with the same contempt most judges reserve for cases like Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the pro-segregation decision rejected by Brown.

The open question is whether the Court’s four most strident opponents of this foundational ruling can find a fifth vote.

None of the Court’s three Democratic appointees were open to the massive transfer of power to federal judges contemplated by the plaintiffs in these two cases. That leaves Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett as the two votes that remain uncertain. To prevail — and to keep Chevron alive — the Justice Department needed its arguments to persuade both Roberts and Barrett to stay their hands.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 75 points 10 months ago

I hope Cleveland is ready, because the Cuyahoga River is going to start catching fire again.

[–] Coasting0942@reddthat.com 66 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Removing Chevron is pro democracy if the congress and senate fairly represent the people and are willing to do the extra work.

Checks notes.

Uh oh…..

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 38 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Extra work? What about normal work? Or even bare minimum?

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 23 points 10 months ago

Best I can do is total obstructionism and tax cuts for the rich.

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, they a need another vacation after not doing anything since the last vacation. Please check back later.

[–] FrostyTrichs@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

This isn't far off. Their schedule this past month and for the next several weeks is laughable (but actually disgusting.)

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 10 months ago

Putting more decisions in the hands of elected officials is not more democratic. They're too slow and there aren't enough of them to make all the necessary decisions. We can't just have more elected officials because most voters can't be bothered to learn about candidates for the positions that already exist.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 42 points 10 months ago (2 children)

So, what exactly does the executive branch do anymore, if they overrule this?

Sounds like government employees couldn’t so much as wipe their ass unless Simon Says.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 33 points 10 months ago

Plenty of conservatives want this. Or are inextricably convinced that they think they want this, as fine a distinction as that is.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It would be hilarious if this was overturned, Biden was elected and he filled the nation with progressive justices. It'd be terrible, but it's similar to Trump saying the president can't commit crimes while he isn't president.

[–] Kiernian@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

It would be hilarious if this was overturned, Biden was elected and he filled the nation with progressive justices.

...who then use their newfound power to close a crapload of loopholes, then re-write chevron in a way that it can't be taken down so easily again so it becomes much harder to create more loopholes or abolish good laws when people with bad intentions have power.

That'd be the best outcome of it getting overturned in my mind, anyway.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 42 points 10 months ago (6 children)

so the senate is fucked with regard to representation and now the supreme court is absolutely fucked with regards to representation.

who is spose to represent me again?

i still get my 1-2 votes to solve this mess? oh right, that doesnt work that away.

yay democracy.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Democracy is great, but unfortunately USA is a very flawed democracy.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 32 points 10 months ago (1 children)

its been quite painful watching a lot of progressive action replaced with regressive action due to conservative billionaires poisoning the minds of half the country

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yes, that's part of being flawed, that billionaires can buy elections. That and a 2 party system driven by first past the post, which is not really democracy either.

[–] SteveCC@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

RepresentUs has a thorough comprehensive plan - https://represent.us/

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Corruption is absolutely an important issue, but it's not enough to fight corruption to fix a democracy that breeds corruption.
It's absolutely a valid cause, and may help the other things getting fixed too down the road. It seems to me many democrats are ready for a better democracy, but not so much for the elected politicians.

[–] SteveCC@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Thanks.

Corruption - dark money, etc is just one part of what Represent Us is working on. Many think that the push for RCV is the most important.
Ending first past the post elections might end a lot of corruption and party domination.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I wish all the best for all who work to protect and improve democracy in USA, I have always loved USA, but it's very difficult to love a country that elect Trump for president.
And I believe it only happened because there are only 2 options, which removes balance from the debate, and silences minority interests among many other negative impacts compared to a better functioning democracy.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

who is spose to represent me again?

If you have at least $100M, all 3 branches of government will go to bat for you.

[–] JakoJakoJako13@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I've been thinking about this for a while. We really are at a point where taxation without representation should be examined. There's always the suggestion of a general strike to force them to function, but I think the easier and more destructive method would be to not pay taxes en masse. It would take organization to get the whole country to do it but there's already a set date and way to disrupt the system that involves you doing nothing. Simply don't file. What happens if nobody files their taxes? What happens if the system grinds to a halt because they chose to collect the most money from the lower tax brackets and let the big corpos run free? On the flip side what happens if everybody doesn't file taxes and the system grinds on anyway? Then what's the point of taxes? Wouldn't that really expose the lack of representation?

[–] jivemasta@reddthat.com 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well the problem is 99% of people have their taxes auto deducted from their check throughout the year. So not doing your taxes, for the most part would do nothing.

That's why labor strike would be doubly effective. You cut off both work, and taxes at the same time.

[–] Zorg@lemmings.world 2 points 10 months ago

And for about the same amount of people the IRS already knows everything they need to calculate their taxes. Not having prefilled tax forms you can verify or correct if you need to, is only a thing because Intuit/turboTax etc want to keep making billions.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's why you vote every time, not just 1-2 times.

Civic duty. Betterment for mankind. Not watching your friends get murdered. Any reason is a good one as long as more fascist Republicans or enablers aren't elected.

[–] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 8 points 10 months ago

i perform every civic vote im allowed. the 1-2 was for the national bullshit.

my point stands

[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago

Comedy 2nd ammendment reversal of fortune.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Focus on the power, or focus on the people? What would Jesus do?

[–] WeeSheep@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (7 children)

It's funny you think they care about people or Jesus.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Saprophyte@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The Daily had a great podcast on this. Overturning Chevron shouldn't be on the table, but due to mismanagement of one agency and way over reaching because they were out of money and wanted to expand other programs is the real cause behind this. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the batch. William Bright, one of the men in the lawsuit, ended up having a regulation enforced differently on him that forced him to pay outrageous fees to take an inspector on his fishing boat that he agrees is important oversight, but never had to pay for previously. He filed a complaint and the Koch brothers jumped on this case to fund attorneys to destroy Chevron deference.

Whatever idiot in the National Marine Fisheries Service decided to start charging for this program that's required and has never been charged to the individuals being inspected previously needs to be crucified for this. Killing Chevron deference will have so many far reaching consequences that have been providing safety regulations for the past 40 years are going to go away. It's now going to be up to Congress, who are nowhere near experts on any of these operations or industries, to come up with specific laws that have to be enforced. These idiots don't do their job already, and the expectation that they're suddenly going to do it well is insane.

https://pca.st/episode/ec42952c-851c-4273-a7e2-29b0ca304b75

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during Wednesday’s arguments, Chevron forces judges to grapple with a very basic question: “When does the court decide that this is not my call?”

And yet, four members of the Supreme Court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — spent much of Wednesday’s arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce speaking of Chevron with the same contempt most judges reserve for cases like Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the pro-segregation decision rejected by Brown.

Both companies have an army of lobbyists, engineers, and scientists, who all argue that their employer’s invention is the “best system of emission reduction” and that the federal government should require power plants to install their tech.

Agencies, by contrast, are staffed by scientists, economists, physicians, and other experts who are more capable of evaluating difficult policy questions than a handful of people with law degrees.

The fundamental question raised in both cases is whether nine unelected lawyers, all of whom have life tenure, should be placed in charge of virtually every policymaking decision made by the executive branch of government.

Justice Kavanaugh, in particular, seemed so eager to give himself this power that he might as well have spent the argument shopping for gold crowns and drawing up an invitation list for his coronation.


The original article contains 1,813 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 88%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] badbytes@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Expand court!

load more comments
view more: next ›