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."
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
I've arrived at what I think is the endpoint we're all gonna arrive at: once the conservatives have the numbers, what they write in the end almost doesn't matter; it's pure fantasy turned jurisprudence. we're all stuck with it and they know it.
the baldness of the assertion is part of the point
(the other part is the power it gives them)
forcing your adversary from a position of weakness to accept your arrogation of power is a special thrill
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
