/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25301215/STK463_SCOTUS_B.jpg)
The downfall of Chevron deference could completely change the ways courts review net neutrality, according to Bloomberg Intelligence’s Matt Schettenhelm. “The FCC’s 2024 effort to reinstitute federal broadband regulation is the latest chapter in a long-running regulatory saga, yet we think the demise of deference will change its course in a fundamental way,” he wrote in a recent report. “This time, we don’t expect the FCC to prevail in court as it did in 2016.” Schettenhelm estimated an 80 percent chance of the FCC’s newest net neutrality order being blocked or overturned in the absence of Chevron deference.
Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has made no secret of her ambitions to use the agency’s authority to take bold action to restore competition to digital markets and protect consumers. But with Chevron being overturned amid a broader movement undermining agency authority without clear direction from Congress, Schettenhelm said, “it’s about the worst possible time for the FTC to be claiming novel rulemaking power to address unfair competition issues in a way that it never has before.”
Khan’s methods have drawn intense criticism from the business community, most recently with the agency’s labor-friendly rulemaking banning noncompete agreements in employment contracts. That action relies on the FTC’s interpretation of its authority to allow it to take action in this area — the kind of thing that brings up questions about agency deference.
Are there any of the rules being weakened that are pro-company/anti-consumer/anti-worker? Not all government rules help people.
Like did OCSH decide I cannot sue my employer, but now I can type shit? I figure the only want to fix this is to hurt Harlan Crow with it.
Are there any of the rules being weakened that are pro-company/anti-consumer/anti-worker?
lmao
This sucks ass. It’s hard to not become blackpilled from Friday’s rulings.
Is there a word to be People’s Will pilled? Cause that’s where I’m heading.
Personally, I take comfort that the executive will be weakened as it looks more and more likely that we’re about to have a wannabe dictator coming to office.
It’ll only be weak for the presidents they don’t like
Removed by mod
What does stare decisis mean? Asking for 6 justices.
I think it means something similar to YOLO.
I’m not an American but my impression is the Supreme Court is mainly designed as a last bulwark to ensure the US never under any circumstances ever does anything remotely good and this isn’t exactly improving that impression.
They interpret the law. And when existing law has bad policy outcomes people get made that 9 unelected lawyers in robes aren’t legislating for us. When the out comes are good people don’t hear about them or forget them.
Ehhhhh you’re kind of ignoring in power/out of power dynamics here and the overwhelmingly conservative slant they’ve adopted the last few years.
To be consistently evil you need checks and balances. This is the system at work.
It’s simply an institution meant to interpret laws and their legality. All of that goes out the window when the people in said institution are politically charged, corrupt, or make bad arguments.
Corrupt doesn’t even begin to describe it these days. They ruled recently that they are legally allowed to accept bribes, so long as the bribe comes after the decision is made.
The laws of the United States of America are literally for sale by conservative judges. This breach of justice is actively dismantling a cornerstone of our countries successful history.
Oh, the irony, that the “conservative” party is the one radically destroying the highest court in America. Their supporters can wave all the flags they want this week, but what they represent is actively destroying this country.
It’s FOR the people BY the people, not for the highest bidder. at least, that’s how it used to be before Trump’s presidency.
You said “or” there when really it should be “and”
For some justices, I agree. However, as a general principle, I think of the vast majority of “bad people” as incompetent rather than malicious unless there’s proof of guilt. I don’t know enough about all 9 justices to comfortably say they’re evil or corrupt.
It’s not about “bad people” or incompetence. It’s about fundamentally violent and corrupt systems of controlling humanity and destroying the planet for personal gain…
This rube goldberg system of injustice was literally invented by slavers.
Considering the context, I took it as an inclusive or.
Ironic considering everything they’re “overturning” is former Supreme Court rulings that granted all these rights.
United enShittification of America
Truly, the best democracy money can buy. “This was the supreme court”, all of which was appointed by different presidents in different time periods, so a direct consequence of political will
Holy shit i can’t believe someone is trying to both sides this. Trump got three nominees, and put 3 far right wing people on the court. If Clinton had put three people on, this would have all gone absolutely been like left wing of the court now, and these people would have gone the other way. And we still have morons clinging to the nonsense that it’s the fault of both sides. Amazing.
I’m not murican, I only know that the US supreme court has at least 9 justices. 3 is a significant number, but not a majority, and only half of the 6 votes that said “akshually, public officers receiving gifts after doing a favor isn’t bribery”
I’m not murican, I only know that the US supreme court has at least 9 justices.
You should then also realize how little you know about it and not use it to make sweeping generalizations about America politics.
But no, you’re still trying to both sides it. Fucking wow.
I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate. Gorsuch for example wrote Bostock v Clayton County (Stopping people from being from being fired for sexual identity or orientation), McGirt v Oklahoma (Upholding a long ignored treaty with the Creek nation), and Ramos v Louisiana (Killing a Jim Crow law designed to disadvantage minorities in criminal trials). They just abide a different judicial doctrine.
On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other. The other poster made the ridiculous claim that had Clinton instead appointed 3 justices, giving the court of 5-4 left majority, that it still would have gone down the same way.
What opinions gorsuch has written has no bearing on this. I’m not even sure why you’re bringing it up.
I’m not even sure why you’re bringing it up.
I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.
On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other.
Inorder as above:
NG, JR, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v SA, CT, & BK
NG, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v JR, SA, BK, & CT
NG, RBG, SB, SS, BK, & CT v SA, JR, & EK
That’d only be true if you consider Gorsuch, Roberts (for him fair), and Thomas as swing votes siding with the left.
I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.
Nor is that what i did. Or wait…are you arguing that they aren’t right wing…because then…wow, I’m not sure what to say.
The fact that it doesn’t always line up left right doesn’t change the fact that these did.
My contention was that they are all radicals. Not that the three are conservative leaning.
The fact that it doesn’t always line up left right doesn’t change the fact that these did.
Unless you consider Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts left wing those three didn’t. Which I consider you don’t given this comment. 30% of the time opinions are 9-0. If you think most of the cases fit a partisan line go through the cases count how many follow partisan lines. They list them all here.
If you group the justices in two partisan groups Thomas and RBG & Roberts and Sotomayor certainly wouldn’t be on the same sides.
Court overturns roe v wade.
“Well, it’s kind of ridiculous to point out that the court has shifted to the right due to trump appointees because sometimes they all rule the same way.”
Maybe an unpopular opinion here on lemmy, but I think this is a good thing.
Chevron is a good idea in theory, give experts in regulating a specific thing more leeway to manage that. Problem is if you give a bureaucratic agency an inch they become maniacal dictators. They start calling bees a kind of fish and a puddle in your backyard a lake, they randomly change up their own decisions making normal people criminals overnight or vice versa, and sometimes they even just try to make their own rules.
If you want a law then make a law, don’t have an unelected bureaucrat issue an edict. If the legislative branch is a mess the solution is to fix the mess, not hand off their powers to the executive branch. Again, if used by level headed people it would have been great, but eventually after so many decisions that would sound too comical for a parody we can’t have nice things anymore.
Do you have any non-hyperbolic examples of this kind of overreach?
Since they won’t answer, let me answer for them…
No. They have no examples or citations for any of their nonsense.
Lol, actually I will answer, and yes it will be with citations
The hyperbole is the point. They’re explaining that such a thing is theoretically possible.
I think their alluding to a California Bee interpretation another commenter mentioned and perhaps Sackett v EPA for the one after that. For the switching one I read that probably referring to multiple cases but the BATFE pistol brace interpretation has gone through multiple instances, several implicating hundreds of thousands into felons. For the making up rules I’d guess they were talking about the recent court decision where the agency decided they could hold fishers accountable for compliance officer’s salaries despite the law not state that they could do that.
Lol, those were not hyperbole, although I get where their absurdity might make you assume they were.
iirc they DID classify bees as fish but only because it was the only way they could enact any kind of protections for them.
And it wasn’t a “bureaucratic agency” either.
Legislators made a law classifying invertebrates as fish. And judges interpreted the law as written. This is the clownery that happens when people with zero expertise control the law.
This is exactly what that fool was advocating for…
If you want a law then make a law, don’t have an unelected bureaucrat issue an edict.
It was a beuroctatic agency, theCalifornia Fish and Game Commission reinterpreted an existing law meant to protect fish instead of seeking a law that actually protected bees.
I think that case was rightly decided on both a policy and law basis. But after the law was enacted, the agency had interpreted the law to have an understanding on how they should enforce it prior to the judicial interpretation.
So the agency did interpret the law as including bees as fish, correctly. Had the not done so the court case wouldn’t have happened because no one would have been advocating for that interpretation.
Looks more like a legislative skill issue than a judicial one to me. I don’t know what is expected of the judges aside from interpreting the law.
I feel like I’m living in the prequel to The Handmaid’s Tale
The first time I saw a headline about this, just saying that the Supreme Court overturned “the Chevron doctrine” my initial thought was that I have no idea wtf they did but if the votes went 6-3 I know it can’t be anything good.
Much to my consternation I appear to have been right.
Exactly! Time to make the SC bigger, so you have to bribe more than 3 or 4 or 6 to get your anti-people policy pushed through…
Trump would add 10 more. Its not enough
My perspective having known about Chevron before Friday is that while this is a big development for admin law people seem to be overstating the impact it will likely have. Agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc can still make rules as before now courts just have to judge arguments on interpretation impartially, like they did before the SCOTUS made the doctrine in the 80s aiding Reagan. The SCOTUS hasn’t even applied it since 2016.
I’ve known this was coming for years. Once Goursich was added it was known to those watching the courts exactly what would happen.
Before one of the hosts did the typical “become an unwanted sexual advance asshole” like everyone seems to become after they gain some fame, Opening Arguments podcast was a great way to learn about how depressing our future will be.
It’s absolutely fucking disgusting that no matter what the outcome SHOULD be, you can almost always call how this court will go simply by asking “what benefits the ultra wealthy and what have conservatives wanted forever?”
Yup, that Open Args deep dive into chevron deference was an eye opener and called this one years ago. Sucks AT turned out to be That Guy.
Ever find a good OA replacement ?
Never listened to OA, but Strict Scrutiny is one I listen to for Supreme Court news and analysis.
Sadly I did not, but I also just stopped seeking that kind of information after Biden won. I needed a break from the madness. Lol
I think I still need to back away to be honest… Being surrounded by MAGA and having two spiders fighting over a cockroach where my memory should be, any time I try to utilize what I’ve learned I just get shit all over by the firehouse of fox news b.s and the inability to remember things to refute it. I’m doing everyone a giant disservice by being another example of “a stupid liberal who has no idea what’s going on.”
Don’t be so hard on yourself! Thanks for the answer.
Listening to OA sometimes made me feel bad. Being a “reality junkie” is a slippery slope to what is now called being “blackpilled”. Hope you can feel better soon.
the stock market likes it
They become less “supreme” with every decision anymore
That just means they come with sour cream and tomatoes
The truth is the winners have already won, and no one else ever will. They do not intend to make the American Dream obtainable for anyone but Those Approved.
It’s a big club. You aren’t in it. I’m not in it. everyone you or I know isn’t in it. You know when your in it, because you benefit from this. If you will likely lose benefits, like all of us will, you aren’t in the club.
How do you fight those in power uninterested in giving up that power?
You take it from them.
The truth is the winners have already won
this. it’s all a big game and there are only winners and losers. good and evil are just ideas. if you believe in something, you go for the throat to make it reality. otherwise, you’re just a loser on the internet bitching about it. more of you need to wake up to this fact.
No one wants to be the vanguard
then we need to keep encouraging chaotic good as an option until we are all ready to do something.
Aight lmk when we’re “all” ready I guess and I’ll go right after you. /s
I miss you George Carlin.
The illusion of democracy has entirely worn off. When are we taking to the streets with guns?
don’t take to the streets. take to the dark web. be smart. don’t be a mob. know which targets bring the most results. clandestine and precise. once upon a time, we had very smart people at the helm of the internet. i fear those people don’t exist any more.
That takes an amount of cunning and resources that few people have. I think most people with the ability to do that benefit from the current status quo.
Democracy isn’t when appointed officials always side with other appointed officials.
It’s when appointed officials side with the people, and the people are educated and thoughtful.
Or so I’m told. I’ve never actually seen one. It’s like a unicorn.
As the saying goes, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
They say so many things about magical place called European Union, where all unicorns live.
When are we taking to the streets with guns?
After we disarm the extremely weaponized cops, military, etc… And we don’t even need guns.
lol. you’ll just legislate the revolution, amirite?
We need guns because we’ll never disarm the state’s goons.
