Tweet
And I'm here for it.
KAKE - Supreme Court conservatives signal willingness to roll back the power of federal agencies
I know libertarians have long taken issue with federal agencies dictating law/policy with no real oversight or accountability and change policy on a whim dependent upon who is in power. No enforceable law in which individuals are, or can be, punished or imprisoned by the federal government should be permitted without a public vote by those accountable to the people.
Who knows if this will truly be ruled on in favor of the people over the feds, but hearing Gorsuch say what virtually all libertarians believe in this instance is encouraging.
KAKE - Supreme Court conservatives signal willingness to roll back the power of federal agencies
The justices are hearing two cases concerning the so-called Chevron deference, which emerged from a 1984 case. Oral arguments in the first case went well beyond the allotted hour, with the conservatives signaling their willingness to overturn the decades-old case and their liberal colleagues sounding the alarm on how such a reversal would upend how the federal government enforces all kinds of regulations.
Congress routinely writes open-ended, ambiguous laws that leave the policy details to agency officials. The Chevron deference stipulates that when disputes arise over regulation of an ambiguous law, judges should defer to agency interpretations, as long as the interpretations are reasonable.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative who has long expressed misgivings about the Chevron deference, at one point boiled his understanding of the doctrine down to one simple outcome when courts examine ambiguous statutes under its terms: “The government always wins.”
“Chevron is exploited against the individual and in favor of the government,” Gorsuch said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson underscored the concern from her and the two other liberals on the bench that overturning Chevron would force courts to make policy decisions that they say are better left for experts employed by federal agencies.
“I see Chevron as doing the very important work of helping courts stay away from policymaking,” she said.
Congress routinely writes open-ended, ambiguous laws that leave the policy details to agency officials. The Chevron deference stipulates that when disputes arise over regulation of an ambiguous law, judges should defer to agency interpretations, as long as the interpretations are reasonable.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative who has long expressed misgivings about the Chevron deference, at one point boiled his understanding of the doctrine down to one simple outcome when courts examine ambiguous statutes under its terms: “The government always wins.”
“Chevron is exploited against the individual and in favor of the government,” Gorsuch said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson underscored the concern from her and the two other liberals on the bench that overturning Chevron would force courts to make policy decisions that they say are better left for experts employed by federal agencies.
“I see Chevron as doing the very important work of helping courts stay away from policymaking,” she said.
Who knows if this will truly be ruled on in favor of the people over the feds, but hearing Gorsuch say what virtually all libertarians believe in this instance is encouraging.
Comment