Roberts has the opinion overruling the 1984 case setting forth a standard in which courts give federal agencies deference to their reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws. The decision gives more power to the courts to strike down agency actions. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...
Roberts, overruling Chevron with incredible and unearned hubris: "Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."
I acknowledge that "unearned hubris" is a poor phrasing. That is either repetitive or creating an unintentional double negative in effect.
Hubris. It's hubris.
I am listening and learning. And, in the absence of sleep, will at least drink more caffeine.
there are entire offices of legal counsel in departments and agencies who are experts in this! and roberts damn well knows they are more competent than cranks like kacsmaryk
Bleakly funny when viewed alongside their claimed helplessness at determining what would make homelessness “involuntary” in the public camping decision. That ambiguity is too hard.
Isn't the point of these agencies to hire people with special competence in their areas of concern? Like, that's a significant part of the executive branch's budget?
It’s akin to an expert in a field with lots of coursework & institutional knowledge saying x, y, z is the right course to take with an issue & a snot-nosed law student from Harvard/Yale coming in & saying, “actually….” while having ZERO knowledge about what they’re talking about.
It’s the Kushner.
"Conservative" Supreme Court Justices: we are not only well-read, master historians, we are also technical experts on all matters of policy.
Next we'll learn they could throw a football over that mountain, if they wanted to
I've never wished violence on a judge before, but this bullshit makes me want to see Gorsuch and the other conservative SCOTUS judges get shoved into lockers.
Ask any mediocre attorney - they can become subject matter experts if provided a 50 page briefing book (illustrated) and a two hour tutorial with an expert provided by their client.
ah yes, courts well known for such stunning insight as:
- black people are property
- it's okay if black people are forced into ghettoes as long as they have an equal sized blanket
- sterilising people is great if i think they're stupid
-
Yeah, because, you know, people who have familiarity with the actual technical workings of, let's say, environmental chemistry and whatnot, don't have as much understanding of how chemicals affect the environment as say, you know, a supreme court justice? I cannot believe the gall of these people
So, the Court isn't there to react to resolve disputes, it is there to make the decisions themselves.
Why even fucking have elections then,if the High Clerics get to adjudicate All Things Under His Sun?
I guess we at least get to pick the person who picks the "Illuminated Ones"... Except for when a candidate fails the popular vote yet still wins which to fair does happen rather often.
