The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a landmark 40-year-old decision that gave federal agencies broad regulatory power, upending their authority to issue regulations unless Congress has spoken clearly.
Am I crazy for thinking that this is actually worse than the court banning abortion?
At least with abortion bans, people could see the direct impact and that could motivate voter turnout. This will be a decision that many voters won’t easily recognize as the cause of the corruption and injustice they will be feeling. A lot of people are going to get hurt, and they’re not going to know the real reason behind it.
The GOP finally got what they’ve been trying to get since the 80s. Get ready for The Jungle 2.0.
The GOP finally got what they’ve been trying to get since the 80s. Get ready for The Jungle 2.0.
The GOP wanted Chevron in the 80s. It was a way of tweaking laws passed already without legislative resistance.
In 1981, after Ronald Reagan became President, the EPA changed its interpretation of the word “source” in the law to mean only an entire plant or factory, not an individual building or machine.
Because letting jackasses in congress set regulatory precedent on things they know jack shit about has always worked out
The goal is for regulations to be held up via congressional deadlock by the obstructionist party. Can’t make a good or bad decision if you can’t make a decision at all.
And this is a massive increase in authority for the courts. If there is ambiguity in the wording of a law, it’s open for a lawsuit.
The dissent on the “it’s a gratuity, not a bribe lol” decision shows that ambiguity isn’t even necessary. Same with the bump stocks ruling. And seceral before that.
The conservatives will pretend there is ambiguity and write pages of rambling pseudo logic no matter how clear the law is.
THE MULLAHS HAVE SPOKEN ON BEHALF OF ALLAH AND YOU SHALL FOLLOW THEIR PRONOUNCEMENTS!
Stare Decisis is for losers.
The decision actually actually mentioned stare decisis on cases decided on the basis of Chevron:
The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful—including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself—are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite the Court’s change in interpretive methodology. See CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U. S. 442, 457. Mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute a “ ‘special justification’ ” for overrulingsuch a holding.
Dred Scott?
Sometimes precedent is plain wrong.
ETA: not in this instance though. This was a time they should have respected precedent.
It’s actually not, which makes it a worse response. It wasn’t overturned by a court which is what state decisis applies to (Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions.) Dred Scott was overturned by the 13th & 14th amendments.
Fucking conservatives
