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.

    • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Dred Scott?

      Sometimes precedent is plain wrong.

      ETA: not in this instance though. This was a time they should have respected precedent.

      • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yes, an incredibly racist ruling is a great comparison to dismantling the administrative state, removing personal healthcare choices, and regulatory authority.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

  • Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Because letting jackasses in congress set regulatory precedent on things they know jack shit about has always worked out

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • carbonari_sandwich@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          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.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Things seemed to be going alright before the Reagan wanted to clarify the language of the Clean Air Act. The Congressional Research Services kinda cover this issue already.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    There’s one way to fix this… elect a landslide blue majority in the HoR and Senate and redefine explicitly the role of every federal agency. That way Republicans in the future can’t weaponize doing nothing as easily.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Removing the filibuster so those things can be accomplished even if the Republicans have 41 Senators will also be necessary. That is what led to the minor improvements in the ACA instead of actually implementing something better like single payer healthcare.

  • Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    This also applies to law enforcement agencies like ice, right? Border patrol? They are all only able to enforce actual laws right?

  • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I mean that’s still what they want, absolute control. It’s just that as soon as Chevron started working against them, they got rid of it.

  • Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    thus they can use the do-nothing republican fascists to shoot things down. fuck this goddamn country