Why Supreme Court Overturning Chevron Doctrine Swings Is The Right Move: Ty Cobb
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 มิ.ย. 2024
- On "Forbes Newsroom," former Trump Administration Special Counsel Ty Cobb responded to the Supreme Court's landmark Chevron decision.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
Perhaps congress will pass more specific laws now.
yeah right. republicans hate passing laws unless it gives a tax cut to the ultra wealthy. They've been investigating hunter biden since 2021 and have done nothing to pass any new legislation since then, just speed running complaints to supreme court to get their way
no they wont
So, we need an unelected deep state to make rules? I hope Trump wins and goes to town .
Allowing law enforcement to make laws is never good for the populace!
The regulation process is quite involved. It involves scientific studies, peer review, public hearings and more. This process is also under control of political appointees who are approved by Congress. Their mandate is establish the best regulations and enforcement that knowageable people can come up with. Of course the system is not perfect and not everybody is going to agree with the regulations and process. Even so there is a check in this process in that presidential elections and congressional elections can result in the correction of the process. Very simply a judge in a court simply does not have the ability to make sound decisions based of the limits of the court process.
Is administrative law constitutional? If so, where in the constitution does it talks about it? When in the constitution does it give executive agencies the enumerate power to legislate?
When has any agency legislated anything?
@MikeW165
Atf making bump stock illegal without congress changing the law. EPA making regulations on a puddle being a body of water.
@@williamholder2020 In what way did the ATF change the law? Specifically
@@MikeW165 They "legislate" through administrative codes, regulations, and contracts. And they do not have the power to do so, however citizens don't know the difference between law and code.
@@jenbhikes What "administrative codes, regulations, and contracts"?? Please explain
it was a bad decision to begin with. there is no justifiable reason for a court to allow the executive branch to be interpreting laws.
Bye bye atf
Keep dreaming
@@MikeW-dz7ij no more making up laws on their own.
@@jesseterrell2109 They haven't made up any laws sooo
@@jesseterrell2109 I dont think you have any actual idea what this ruling means or does
@@MikeW-dz7ij I know exactly what he is talking about. But I'm also informed and not an insane spammer in denial.🤭
Best move to get sanity and rein in the bad bureaucrats in government...not working for the people
The Entirety of America's War no Drugs is based on Chevron...
Perhaps, but it's also given us the clean water and air act.... guess lead in our water and smog so thick you can cut it with a knife doesn't matter?
Have you heard that ex-drug dealers (Fla) are now defrauding Medicare out of billions with less than half the risk and penalty?
Well, not entirely. Parts of it, sure.
@@IAMTRASHMAN267 when you're arrested for drug crimes its Possession of a controlled substance. the control is how its scheduled (remember that Pot was a schedule 1?) the whole scheduling part of it is developed under chevron. Since congress has not made a law making pot or cocaine or heroine illegal specifically, then the whole methodology is challengeable.
ya not only that but OTHER THINGS that are helpful are based on it
The judicial branch interprets laws. It's really that simple.
No, it is not simple. You are TOTALLY IGNORANT what this ruling is about.
@kathryncronkrite8027 explain it please.
Interprets laws based on The Constitution. You may be TOTALLY IGNORANT.
Reagan Administration themself said Courts can’t interpret laws that deal with insanely technical scientific questions. Deferring to agencies and their scientific judgement makes sense.
@@williambutler8599 So, sometimes laws are ambiguous in their language, this can be intentional or accidental but is in many cases intentional. (A quick list of some reasons it may be done intentionally: over specificity can make it easy to get around a regulation through loopholes, the law needs to be and should be flexible to change based on circumstances, congress may not have the specific knowledgebase required to get into the details and hopes the agency which is designed to handle the topic and has experts in the field can fill in the gap, and the language is meant to include future technologies not yet invented so the language cannot specifically name such technologies since they are not yet in existence or possibly even conceived of.) Thus, Congress counts on agencies who have expertise in the matter to fill in the gap. There is some evidence this is intentional since Congress could have overruled Chevron in the roughly 40 years since it was decided, but never made any even remotely successful effort to do so if they made one at all. Under Chevron courts didn't give the agencies final say in what the interpretation was, they just gave it deference in its interpretation when the legislation was ambiguous unless the interpretation was arbitrary and capricious. In other words, the court let the agency use its reasonable discretion to interpret the meaning of the legislation. This was done for a variety of reasons such as: courts lack the expertise the agencies will have; the courts are an unelected body while the agency is run under an elected executive; bringing any interpretation through the courts take years since you have to go through all the stages of a court case (some court cases have take up to a decade to complete); if any interpretation by an agency could be challenged, then different regions will have different standards (most court cases are not settled at the supreme court, they are settled in the district courts or the court of appeals and there is a long history of different circuits having different interpretations of legislation, so different regions would have different standards on thousands of pieces of legislation meaning many regulations will not have any form of uniform enforcement unless the Supreme Court makes a final determination on each and every single one of the possible legislative regulations, etc.). The Supreme Court's decision here rolls all of that back, and is likely to run into all of the same issues just mentioned above.
Furthermore, it always has been that the Executive interprets the law to some extent so saying the judicial branch is the one who interprets the law always would be either a gross ignorance of history and how the law works or an intentional misreading of both in order to get one's desired outcome. The executive has to interpret the law in order to enforce it. Let's take a look at an example from the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 which were at issue in the original Chevron decision. The Act required States to establish a permit program regulating "new or modified major stationary sources" of air pollution. Such permits were not supposed to be issued for a new or modified major stationary source unless several stringent conditions were met. However, the Act did not define with specificity what "stationary sources" were. So, unless the Executive branch interpreted what it meant, it couldn't do anything. So the choice would then be to ask the courts for an advisory opinion on its meaning (something they are reluctant to do in the best of times since they aren't supposed to do that generally nor would such an advisory opinion be binding), or waiting for years for the interpretation to be litigated in court (which either cannot be done, since courts require standing for a party to bring a suit which has strict requirements which makes getting a case before a court before any policy is implemented very hard to do, or is very hard to do depending on the situation at hand). For this particular situation, who would have standing to bring the case before the executive started implementing their interpretation? No one would have cognizable damages and without knowing what interpretation would be used a court couldn't provide relief from any potential damages since depending on what interpretation was used most parties may not have any damages. So any such decision would be an advisory opinion, which as stated above would not actually even solve the issue since such an opinion isn't binding. So, the executive MUST give an interpretation of the law. So claiming "the judicial branch interprets laws, it's really that simple" makes zero sense from a legal perspective. Sure, they get final say over if the interpretation is Constitutional or otherwise violative of the law, judicial review, but that is not the same thing. Courts will then normally differ to this interpretation if it is reasonable which was essentially codified in Chevron deference due to the reasons stated above. Any questions?
What needs to be overturned is the way corporations have the same anonymity that an individual citizen does when contributing to a campaign. It’s ridiculous and what keeps this crazy bribery machine going. Why are “public servants” that make a couple hundred grand a year multi-millionaires??
If msm hates it... I love it.
@@ShamooStu so your entire personality is based on opposing whatever you think is mainstream?
Are you a professional hipster?
@@nk-dw2hm No, and I'm not a msm sheeple either.
Its now unconstitutional for the EPA to enforce feces being treated before you get water in your tap. Companies are free to dump waht they want in your water. Enjoy the poo smoothie! You love it because MSM hates the taste.
@@nk-dw2hm He's right.....the same anti-human and anti-American globalists are rallying AGAINST this increase in freedom. There is a crazy amount of people in the mainstream media who are FOR Orwellian government control (humorously, the Chevron decision is FROM 1984....you cannot make this stuff up).
Maybe there is hope for our civilization yet.
@@ShamooStu I love how many fox news viewers complain incessantly about "msm" without any sense of irony or hypocrisy.
If only gop voters had enough brain cells to understand that the most watched channel is the literal definition of mainstream.
This goes well beyond federal bureaucracy. It is ruled on the basis that bureaucracy cannot be trusted to point the direction legally on constitutional issues. So in essence, this has removed all state and local government power to use deference in making laws that are federal court jurisdiction...like anything that has to do with the 5th amendment and the 2nd amendment, etc...
Because unelected bureaucrats don't always let little things like constitutional authority hinder their objectives. They need to be checked.
Do you have any actual idea what this ruling does?
@@MikeW165 Yes. It restores us mostly to what the situation was before the 1984 ruling and protects us from the slow creep of administrative overreach. Heck, what's happening with Title IX right now is a good example of the federal government sidestepping Congress to change the law significantly and backdoor in self-ID theory (which they know they could never pass through Congress, so they have to pretend that this is what the framers of Title IX ever intended for its use, and undercuts the very demographic it was intended to help.)
It's not the uncharted waters or wild west that the other side is fear mongering about. They have no credibility. Literally everything the conservatives do is somehow the most destructive, dangerous, reckless and evil thing they've seen.
@@IraRossDnicely said.
@@IraRossD So you have literally no idea what this ruling does. Got it
@@IraRossD I notice you didn't actually say what the ruling does or what "the situation was before the 1984 ruling" was. lol
The kindness here is so inspiring. Blessings to everyone!
Yes, because if history has taught us anything, giving more power to corporations is always a good thing. I am sure nothing bad will come of this at all.
Thank you. That is a spot on correct statement.
because giving it to government is alot smarter... think a little
@@hobertmasterson8357 Bud, I can vote governments out of office. Explain to me how I vote out the people in Boeing who knowingly make unsafe planes.
Get out of here with your corporate bootlicker garbage.
@hobertmasterson8357
Idiot
Government is a body of people.
Some elected
Most appointed
Who do you thinks is running Government?
Corporations puppets.
For financial gains
@@hobertmasterson8357 Has it ever occurred to you that it is a two edged sword? So is unlimited freedom. There is no such thing! We are limited by a limited number of choices.
There was NEVER any “Right” or Reason to allow UnElected Bureaucrats the ability to Create Rules or Regulations having the Effect or “Force of Law”.
There are Constitutionally 51 “Bodies” that can “Make Law” … the Federal Legislature and the Legislature of Each State (under Constitutional Guidelines). Some States’ Constitutions extend that power to Their Own Municipalities within Their Borders.
THAT’S where ALL “Law” and Regulation should come from AND NOWHERE ELSE.
anything that limits Government overreach and expansion forced onto the people that isn't done through our elected representatives (that's where the "accountability" is supposed to reside) is great news to me.....smaller, less intrusive Government, The new Conservative President in Argentina reduced inflation from around 25 % to around 9 % by getting rid of the bloat in their Government , and eliminating the Govt. regulatory agency's, bureaus, etc that weren't needed or were already regulated by another agency ( overlap/redundancy). We waste too much money on our bloated , inefficient , bureaucratic monstrosity of a Government. We should get the most for our taxes and they shouldn't be so high either, let that money go back to the people so that it can circulate/ percolate through our economy to invigorate the economy, which helps produce more industry and creates higher paying jobs for the breadwinners to raise their families.
Big corps and govt is a revolving door anyways
We’re taking our country back from evil
Good; the judiciary interprets the law, not unelected bureaucrats.😂
The judiciary quite frankly is not educated in the right fields to effectively interperet the best way to enact say the clean water act, or the clean air act. Its why congress signed agencies like the EPA into law in the first place. To create a part of goverment with the technical know how to best interpret and enforce a vague law like we should have clean water. Congress doesnt have time to learn all the ins and outs of water quality to pass specific enough laws to protect people. This was a target for big industries who dont want to have to worry about the consequences of their actions. By the way the judiciary is unelected too.
I've watched several videos from Progressive content creators on this decision, and they all seem to be of the opinion that it was "fascist"- proving they have no idea of what "fascism" is, save something they do not like. How revolutionary, really, is a decision stating that all legislation should originate with the Legislature?
Yea ive watched a bunch of the MSM channels and they are all "please regulate us more fed daddy" and act like this just made all regulation disappear. Like the legislative branch isnt supposed to do the legislation. Unelected bureaucrats dont have law making powers
Except that isn't what this decision will do. The agency's regulations originated from the legislature through the establishment of the regulatory framework the legislation laid out and then delegated to the agency. This allows the Court to say that if they don't like an agency's interpretation they can throw it out. This makes the unelected court more powerful, not the Legislature. Now if the Legislature doesn't want the court to do whatever it wants with the interpretation, the legislature will have to lay out each and every regulation with such specificity that it will either be pointless due to loopholes, be unable to adapt to facts on the ground, be unable to adapt to new technologies or techniques, etc. It would also need to get experts in the field to advise on every single step of writing the legislation if it didn't want the courts to interpret the legislation however they want. No language could be left ambiguous. Every law would have to be so rigid it is insane. This isn't giving power to the legislature, it is giving it to the court to say "I don't like your interpretation, I am inserting mine." They would also have different interpretations in different circuits so the interpretations wouldn't be uniform. In other words, responses like yours tell me you know nothing of how law works.
@@cmurph103you seem to think the courts don’t already assert their own interpretation on top of the unelected bureaucrats interpretation which seems to change on a daily basis. This gets rid of one interpretation and the other is checked by a higher court if appealed. You just don’t like that because you don’t control the top court. Well, too bad. Welcome to America, son. 😂
@@cmurph103Maybe if you cannot express your thoughts in few clear sentences you should quit trying to.
@@cmurph103 Courts have had the power to say "I don't like your interpretation, I am inserting mine" since 1803 (Marbury v Madison), so that is nothing new.
Different courts have ruled differently on issues throughout our history, and a resolution has to be crafted. That, too, is nothing new.
A response like yours tells me that YOU have no idea how law works.
Just like the judicial branch is not constitutionality endowed with law making authority neither is any government agency. Agencies' authority is only such that is mandated by congress. Too often unelected bureaucrats think they can stretch their authority beyond congressional grant without accountability. 😮😂
The neutering of the administrative state... They can't arbitrarily make rules that they like... They must read the law as it is and NO interpretation by the agency.
Hey remember how our rivers were catching on fire on a regular basis that resulted in Chevron Deference in the first place?
It will soon be happening again, and we'll still be paying the same for all the products they sell.
😂😂😂
Remember how Congress didn’t purposely write ambiguous legislation before the Chevron decision?
@@winesap2 Horse puckey. Rivers on fire would be addressed without Chevron deference; even tort suits might work.
@@jonahansen we have things called laws. All agencies do is come up with the policies that enforce the laws. You shouldn’t have to sue someone to have clean air and water when you have laws saying it’s illegal to pollute. You shouldn’t have to sue the place you work if they are not paying you overtime when you’re working overtime. Maybe you’ve got millions to spare to sue a corporation, but it just isn’t a practical way to run a government. This Trump scotus is so corrupt, just like everything else connected to him.
Did Forbes get bought out by Rupert Murdock and I didn’t notice?
51% of Forbes is owned by the Chinese.
Forbes has always been far-right. You just noticing this now? Just go to their page and see all the praise they give the Kennedy senator from Luisiana.
Long ago. Elite corruption.
@@edmondwhite6683 stop pretending this is normal.
As a lawyer, I recognize that "Chevron" was and is a landmark case of 40 years. For four full decades, federal courts all over America have used the "Chevron" case as a guide. It has been precedent pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis.
All throughout America federal courts (both trial and appellate) have interpreted fed agency action (IRS, SEC, DOL, and countless others) via the "Chevron" lens.
The Supremes have now changed that -- reversing "Chevron" -- just as they reversed Roe v. Wade. The result is that previously settled law (under "Chevron") on which lawyers and their business clients have based important decisions is ZAPPED ! "Chevron" is no more.
The Supremes' action in throwing out 40 years of settled jurisprudence -- an extremely important goal for decision makers -- under "Chevron" derails or destroys or obliterates achieving the goal of SETTLED law. After all, if "Chevron" were such bad law, it would have been changed decades ago, right?
In sum, I dissent from counsel's videotaped comments. Overturning "Chevron" IS a big deal!
I rest my case . . . .
`
So, being consistent is more important than being correct?
@@kitsuneneko2567 While I agree with you, technically, that is the principle of stare decisis - consistency is more important that being correct under common law.
@@untrueman Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu were all considered settled law. It took too long, but they were overturned just as Chevron has been. Stare decisis should not protect immoral and mistaken rulings.
@@kitsuneneko2567 Excellent point!
*Abogadojon:* _"... derails or destroys or obliterates achieving the goal of SETTLED law."_
Don't you mean it "settled BAD law"?
*Abogadojon:* _"..., if "Chevron" were such bad law, it would have been changed decades ago, ...?"_
It would have if leftists hadn't been in control that saw government expansion as a good thing regardless of the impact on freedom.
Congress will have to do actual work now and have more clarity in laws they pass.
At BEST, it is going to delay action that needs to be taken immediately. Think about contaminated food from Tyson. Do you really want to wait for a court to decide if it should stop?
I think you are being hyperbolic here. The bureaucracy will still function as it always has. All this case does is say that the bureaucracy can’t do unconstitutional things without accountability.
*_Amos_*
Yes because as soon as it hits the news consumers will stop buying at restaurants that use Tyson. Free speech and free market prevails. We don’t need government.
@@Pseudify 17,000 regulations are underpinned by Chevron. With the underlying Chevron case now overturned, those regulations are immediately overturned as well. They were only lawful BECAUSE Chevron was law. Enjoy your new poo infested, pee infested tap water, bugs ,maggots and rat feces in your food, and some of the most unsafe air, road and rail transportation you have ever experienced in your lifetime.
@Pseudify unconstitutional things needs to be defined. Let me help you. Congress did not explicitly pass laws regulating the amount of poo particles allowed in your food or water. That was the FDA and EPA. As of this ruling, the FDA and EPA interpretation of the law and defining allowable amounts of poo in drinking water and your foods was close to zero. It is now unlawful for the FDA or EPA to fine a company for giving you poo, pee, maggots, centipedes, skin flakes, spittle, vomit in your foods amd waters because these descriptors were defined by the agencies not congress. Cheer on thouvg while you enjoy your poo smoothie and centipede latte now that food companies have a window to operate with impunity while we wait for people like Marjorie ataylor Greene to agree that poo does not belong in water.
One disagreement: They don't start on third base under Chevron, they start half way down the third baseline. While blaming the agencies is easy as they often can construct wide ranging rules ... take a look at the Federal Register.... the rules are now so large as to dwarf everything else...the real source of the problem was Congress starting in the 1960s by passing open-ended laws and then left it to the agencies to implement the "policy". Then Congress does very little oversight on the adopted rules. My point is simple, make Congress do their jobs: pass better laws, conduct real oversight, and simplify the morass of rules. This decision could have much large implications down the road as "rules" are not longer granted automatic passes any more. The Supreme Court has done a great thing here for the future of the country.
Yes, totally agree.
But corporations are people with people rights now
Actually, the problem is much more basic. The Federal Government was never empowered to do 90% of what they are doing today. Eliminate all but the basic functions of protecting our individual rights. Let the States handle the rest.
I hope so. It’s just so rare that anything actually makes things better for us anymore.
All laws need to sunset every 5 years and be re-voted.
I mean... it's the right move if you're a corporation! It's a bad move for everyone else.
How is it a bad move for everyone else?
You do know only congress can make laws correct?
@@jamietwigg5152 Regulatory measures will take much, much longer to pass. Despite what the majority opinion from Roberts implies, there is nothing preventing thousands of federal rules from being challenged in courts now. Overturning Chevron is a key component to Project's 2025 plans to ban medications like mifepristone nationwide. I could go on for much longer, but why would I when your retort is "you do only know congress can make laws correct?" 🤓
@@emmaarmo379 Huge win for us that support the 2nd Amendment.
Keep crying though, I don't want people we didn't elect making laws, sorry that's how we got into this mess.
@@jamietwigg5152 do you think we elect court of appeals and district court judges? you don't seem to know much about the mess you're complaining about
@@emmaarmo379 Courts don't make laws, they up hold them
Yeah, who needs regulations for clean air, water, or food? Let's go billionaires!!!!!🤢
Then why were reporters at Forbes opposing this ruling.
This decision is great for the "little guys" that have been taken advantage of by large government.
😂
It’s great for corporations who want to bypass health and safety regulations.
The gist of the Chevron deference was that judges had to fall back on the opinions of the experts in said field when there was an ambiguity.
Now we will have activist judges and judges who have been bribed making decisions without needing any sort of scientific expertise.
It does NOTHING for the little guys, and everything for the BIG GUYS who run big corporations like Disney. You don't even understand what this ruling is about.
Try to start a company and comeback. So many hidden rules that aren't expressly written into any law but created by the federal beaurocrats. The case itself was literally a small fishing company fighting because they can't afford to pay for government regulators to be on their boats.
@@TheBanshee90 Those things NEED to be defined and interpreted, so instead of bureaucrats, lawmakers and courts are going to decide for you.
So leave it to congress who have sold us out
Of course FORBES would say it's the right move lmfao
Re SCOTUS letting homelessness be outlawed:
Debtors' Prisons, which can also legally lease out prisoners as labor sources, isn't slavery ... why?
Imagine being this ignorant. Scotus didn't allow or so anything. It started what the constitution says. And there no limit (outside cruel and unusual) on how the state can punish vagrants for breaking laws. There is no right to be a vagrant in the constitution.
Homelessness isn't outlawed, building a tent city along public sidewalks, shooting dope out in the open, creating sanitary hazards and crapping in the streets is illegal.
You must be one of those insufferable advocate people whose funding depends on you perpetuating false narratives.
Hopefully this will hurt Brandon's GND overreach. The congress makes laws, not the EPA. Or any other alphabet agencies that believes they are above the law or create them.
The "alphabet agency" is the only thing making sure the tap water doesn't catch fire.
@@AceofSpades511 The sky is falling huh Ace. Run to your safe room. People have been drinking dirty water for ten of thousands of years. Being responsible falls to the drinker of said water. Not some bureaucrat.
@@wydoesntexist And tens of thousands of people have died from cholera and other diseases from drinking dirty water. Are you volunteering to self-sacrifice yourself by drinking this bad water or do you think Americans are entitled to have clean water? Or have you managed to delude yourself into thinking you have immunity from these diseases, just as you apparently think you have immunity from COVID?
@@wydoesntexistthat’s you It’s not good at all
@@wydoesntexist this was made because rivers were literally burning. All about personal responsibilities until we hold corporations accountable for such heinous actions. "It's the water drinker's responsibility for the water they drink" aka "fuck you, I got mine."
This is a triumph of business interests over public interests. Those corporate puppets have no shame.
And gop voters will keep voting against their interests
Try reading the US constitution.. Only congress has the power to make law.. Giving unelected civil.servants the power to "interpret" legislation as giving them authority to essentially write their own laws is not only unconstitutional, it gives unelected unaccountable goverment union emplyees the power to levy fines and put people in jail for breaking rules that are givin the same power as law.. And nothing prevents these unelected bureaucrats from being bribed with million dollar private sector employment opportunities if they write regulations harmful to the upstart competition.
@@mikeborrelli193 this has nothing to do with making law
@@mikeborrelli193 civil service still have the power to interpret legislation. But that isn’t somehow writing law. Haha
@@mikeborrelli193 agencies still have the power to create regulations. That hasn’t changed.
Seeing the group of people that are whining about this like infants just reinforces my belief that it's a good thing it was overturned. 😂😂😂
That’s always a good indicator, when the liars join together and all say the same thing. It’s not hard to conclude that it’s all lies.
Look at their reaction, “corporations can now pollute without punishment” or “all drugs are legal now” their responses are infantile and absurd.
How quickly we've forgotten rivers burning, superfund site evacuations,and PFAS destroying water tables.
PFAS destroying our digestive systems too
How does this change any of that? It just means we can challenge the government. It doesn’t mean they can run rough over us like they were doing.
@@GORT70 You could always challenge the government. Nothing was ever preventing you from doing that
@@GORT70Agreed. The solution is for legislators to write clear laws to regulate these things. What has been occurring is writing vague or incomplete laws and then allowing the administrative state to interpret the gray unspecified areas any way they want at any time they want, and then to reinterpret their decisions when they choose. The problem being that the public can not read the law and understand the expectations because they are vague, unclear and subject to change whenever the administrative state chooses to change them.
It's almost as-if legacy media, like Forbes, is still operating under the gaslight playbook. This is what happens when gaslighting runs out of gas.
what does Chevron gas have to do with the supreme court?
Finally. Democracy returned to the people.
Question? Will The Boeing Co now get away with everything now?
All started happening under biden administration. Want to know why? Boeing had to fire thousands of experienced personal for political reasons.
Great news! F the ATF!
Because just like Roe, Chevron was always bad law.
Jury decides- back into the hands of the people.
So does that mean LSD and MDMA are legal now?
There you go playing dumb like a good liberal.
That’s a ridiculous question.
They didn’t eliminate the three letter agencies. They stop them from infringing on the rights of individuals.
They were enforcing laws that they had made up. This only hurts their ability to use Lawfare against their political enemies. The 1984 law had the intent of giving three letter agencies discretion on the logistics of enforcing the law. They used that loophole to change laws and overreach their authority. Every single case against Trump is an example of that.
No. If you want to end the dea pray for the overturning of wickard v filburn (ie why it took a amendment to federally outlaw alcohol but not weed).
Good. This means that the government actually has to have a leg to stand on before bringing these cases to court
NEVER IMPEDE CORPORATE PROFITS. NOT IN DEFENSE OF HUMAN LIFE OR ANYTHING ELSE
You're missing the point.
😂😂 sure "regulate me harder unelected bureaucrats " 😂😂
‘duh corpooraysheins’ - 🤪
If I understand the ruling, executive branch agencies can not interpret laws, but can only enforce them. The way our system use to work was legislatures would create laws at a superficial level and then create a department to figure out the law and enforce it. Lets take something we all live with - Congress or state legislatures create a law that says , drives must obey posted speed limit signs. Then they created department of transportation to figure out what speed limits should be. DOT then installs 100,000+ speed limit signs across the state. This means that the DOT has interpreted what the law intended and acted on that by installing speed limit signs. The new ruling states that the DOT can not interpret the law, but only enforce it. Your minding your own business going down main street doing 45 in a posted limit of 30. You get stopped and get a ticket. When you go to court, you state that you have not broken any law and there is no law that states you must go 30 mph on main street at the location you got the ticket, and that is true. With this ruling, every speed limit, every stop sign, every one way sign, every no parking zone and every fire zone will have to be written into law or authorized by the courts as case law. EVERY ONE of THEM!!! This applies to all executive branch agencies, federal, state and local. National building code - GONE, national electrical code - GONE, national plumbing code - GONE. EPA, FTA DOJ, OSHA, HUD and any agency that has rules or regulations not spelled out by law - GONE. Let this sink in for awhile!!!!
Most of these regulations were written in blood. Too many people were dying unnecessary deaths from driving too fast, so they realized they needed speed limits.
They can interpret them. They cannot rip out root and branch and replace them with their own. (Eg student loan program, shutting down whole coal industry)
better to have no law than too much. Gov always looking for ways to insert itself into peoples lives and stay forever.
@@arnoldberk2809 Be careful what you wish for. Because now, Republicans can no longer write vague laws that benefit corporations, they have to spell out the benefit instead. I know this kind of stuff is difficult and requires some critical thought, but stay with me now.
This is going to cost people elections, as they are going to have to answer for some of these non-vague laws that can no longer be interpreted to the benefit of donors by republican administrations. Mark my words, you are going to see blowback when this comes back to bite, just like Dobbs came back to bite and has been decimating anti-abortion candidates for nearly 3 years now.
@@arnoldberk2809no one shut Cole at all Wake up
Oh and a big THANK YOU to the following people for making this possible:
Harry Reid
Hillary Clinton
James Comey
Lois Lerner
Barack Obama
CNN
The hubris of whom gave us DJT and three FANTASTIC Federalist justices.
So your saying this will hurt Nancy and her back room deals then i am all for it
Can we bring back the Glass-Stegall act next?
Rolling back Glass Stegall got us the subprime mortgage crisis.
@@Myungbean Yep, as well as introduced us to the housing crisis, what with the average American having to compete with aggressive investors.
Bye ,bye DEA
You might as well try to defend Citizens United in the same breath. The average person is going to be negatively effected by this. As if corporations didn't already receive preferential treatment in the U.S.
You're dead wrong. Almost all corruption comes from government, and government bureaucrats should never be permitted to make vague laws and then interpret them however they like.
@@billstrasburg384 All corruption comes from humans with power. Without checks and balances, the corruption spreads. Corporations aren't somehow exempt from this natural inclination, especially once they become monopolies...
@@selcouth86 Monopolies happen under socialism, and almost never under the competition of Capitalism. Monopolies are also a sign of government corruption, which is why I said that almost all corruption comes from government.
If you use the example of lobbyists, you will get the same answer. Whom are they lobbying? Corrupt government bureaucrats. That is government corruption.
If you provide any other complaint of corporations, it will be of corporate socialists who HATE Capitalism and use corrupt government bureaucrats to insulate themselves from the competitive nature inherent to a free market.
Capitalism died long ago in the U.S. Even Reagan didn't quite resurrect it, although the deregulation of the 1980s created the best time in the history of the USA.
The government is literally in charge of every aspect of every industry in our economy. Everything that is going wrong is as a result of government manipulation and corruption and perverse incentives.
Almost ALL corruption comes from government, like I said.
Scotus doesn't exist to rule on what is fair or right. They rule on what the constitution says. If you want to regulate free speech pass a constitutional amendment.
@@TheBanshee90 The Snyder decision undercuts that argument entirely, especially with Alito and Thomas asserting that they are textualists. Indicate where their ruling is substantiated in plain text, as written.
Reassuring!
Ohhhhh please! We all know the answer to that question.
Why?
Because it was being misused for political reasons
Will corporations suddenly be trustworthy now,?
It’s just a start in the effort to regain the liberty that men and women have died for, a very small step in reigning in our overly indulgent federal government.
If you think the supreme Court is bad now, they're just getting warmed up 😅 for if or when Trump gets realected
Agencies did not create the laws, they enforced them. Congress says we want clean air, the EPA figures out the best way to do it. This basically means that if the law makers don't use exacting language in a law, police won't be able because they can't make decisions based on broad objectives.
Most judges are not firefighters, and are not aware of the difference in flammability between a gasoline powered car, and an electric one. (Note - gasoline can be dispersed with water, batteries can not, and the lithium oxide prevents smothering as the reaction produces its own oxygen. Electric cars take nearly six times as much water to extinguish.) So expecting them to have the final word on on car fire protection requirements is pretty damn asinine.
Maybe they should’ve thought about that before they abused their power? Well, too bad. Maybe next time, son.
@@iDeagles Exactly, the courts shouldn't be abusing their power like this. It really defeats the point of a government if you can't actually enforce laws.
@@MrChainsawAardvark The courts regularly abuse their power along with unelected bureaucrats but now only one of them has the potential to do so and they're much more likely to be checked by a higher court. Cry about it.
The people finally win
Hvala puno za video! 🇷🇸
Maybe I am behind here. I remember being taught in school that it was the court that interpreted the law. There's 3 branches that are supposed to keep each other in check. Was I taught wrong? This is a real question. I'm not trying to make a point. I am truly confused because I thought it was already like this.
You’re right, it was a misinterpretation of the law that caused this Scotus decision. They had to step in and clarify because the intent of the 1984 law was to give the three letter agencies discretion based on their expert analysis and the logistics of enforcing.
But these agencies have overreached their authority by changing the definitions of words, effectively changing the application of the laws that they are supposed to enforce.
They took the “discretion” intent way too far.
You only need to look at the EPA and there hubris in all lotting corporations “carbon credits” that essentially allow them to pollute. There are thousands of other examples in cases that will be affected by this., like foreign interest, buying American land to mine for cobalt at the detriment of farmers and residents
For people that say the agencies have the expertise the courts don't: that may be true, but courts are a forum where as much expertise as is necessary can be introduced and there is an adversarial interaction where arguments are presented and weighed by a jury or judge. Agencies have been shown to tend to develop an agenda or be politicized; this is one way to counter that.
Thank God the courts haven't been politicized. 😂
People that say "agencies have the expertise" are absolutely not informed. That is a cop-out. I worked for those agencies and do you know who we take our direction from? The private sector...(i.e. people like you and me that have long-stare capabilities). Government agencies are packed with bureaucrats that make decisions about how best to proceed. They are not experts in any sense of the word. The experts do not serve in government, making under 200K/annum. They make millions advising such agencies, in order to continue making millions...advising said agencies.
To fine any enity will be decided by a Jury or a Judge which is going to be way more expensive for everyone. One with deep pockets could drag the case for years. The enforcement part has been crippled.
Administrations change when a new president is elected and so yeah the head of various Agencies can change and they can interpret and enforce various rules differently. Some rules are kinda vague, and it's to give a necessary grey area to certain complex things that occur that allows a sort of "wiggle room". Whoever is the current agency leader, they get to decide how to interpret this wiggle room and how to enforce it. Maybe they get really strict and specific, or maybe they stop enforcing it altogether. It's up to the agency to decide. Most of these agencies are run by people who are experts in their fields. Scientists, Doctors, Lawyers, etc. That's the whole idea is that in a functional world, we are SUPPOSED to be able to trust that our leaders will pick smart people who are qualified to run these agencies like the EPA and FDA and FCC. So there isn't supposed to be an "agenda" like you claim.
This change essentially takes those grey area/wiggle rooms on various intentionally vague rules and says "If an industry decides to ignore this grey area, it doesnt matter what the current agency leaders or experts they've employed say their interpretation of that rule is. If they want it to be enforced, they have to get a law passed by congress implementing this specific interpretation of the rule." It kneecaps any and all enforcement of grey areas that have been necessary to the way our government has been running for the past 40 years. Like if you were so worried about various Agencies having "Agendas", what about the agendas of major corporations that are excited they no longer have to abide by certain rules and regulations because who the fuck is gonna enforce it? What about their agendas? Chevron was our way of countering corporate Agendas.
@@xackbellegaming3491facts
this is the WRONG move
I'm asking for your prayers and support. Please send healing vibes my way.
"We can count on Brett Kavanaugh to regulate the commercial flight industry." This Supreme Court wants us to believe politicians and judges can be pilots, engineers, and reproductive health doctors.
They don't have to be. Any side can call experts to support arguments. At least other sides to the arguments have a chance this way.
This comment has absolutely nothing to do with the video lmao
Yeah it’s really bad when unelected bureaucrats get power restricted
@@cwkay6847 This doesn't restrict anyone lol
@@MikeW165It restricts the bureaucrats who are not elected officials from acting like they have the authority to make laws.
Greatness ! Thank you SCOTUS !
NOT GREATNESS. IS CHAOS. IS SCOTUS POWER GRAB.
Chevron Gas Stations are fucking garbage.
Just say they're too expensive for you
What value does that have? It’s the maker for a Supreme Court ruling, not just the name of a corporation.
Sunoco gets it.
LOL
@@camacho.48 If you want to keep overpaying for a basic commodity, then that's on you. OP is right.
Yeah, and we learned little from this guy. Just speak plainly. Dramatic. Fall-out. STRING IT!
Angry Santa😮
I’d rather they meet in the middle. Allow agencies to impanel a jury for some size of civil matters. What’s the big? Why can big finance get access to the courtroom but poor people can’t in a civil situation?
Wow, I'm not listening to this guys wacky interpretation of what the Supreme Court just ruled.
So tell us your interpretation then.
This decision to swing regulatory administration from the Executive branch (agency experts) to the courts (non-experts) is a clear move to hoard power at the Supreme Court, who with this current majority believes this will be an enduring advantage for the next 30 years.
This decision was PURCHASED by 25 years of wining, dining, RV’ing, vacationing, and “paid friendships” by the Koch brothers, Harlan Crow, and other wealthy ‘slave’holders. Disgusting.
Bye😂
This is a good thing and it takes away, what some may call, tyrannical power away from the Federal agencies like the FBI, ATF, EPA, etc. The Fed will no longer have unelected power to overrule our laws or legislation. Checks and Balances, as it should have always been. Case and point, now the ATF cannot make a new "rules" or "definitions" whenever it fits the agenda of the current/future presidential administrations.
In what way was an agency overruling a law? Have an example?
You must be an incredibly rich human being who owns an oil company or something like Tyson foods. Otherwise, this is about polluting your air, and the water you drink. It’s also about the ability to screw you financially with little or no consequences.
@@craig8638 No, I'm a low income individual who lives off grid and resents the agencies telling me I have no right to be on my own property without paying out thousands in permits. Have you seen the movie Minority Report where they use psychics to predict criminal behaviour so they can prevent it? There are already laws against polluting water, for example, but agencies tend to make rules designed to prevent it in the first place. I get it, we all want clean water, it's hard to reverse damage after it's done, blah blah blah. But we all drank the liberal fear koolaid since 2001 and gave away too much freedom in this regard. There has to be a proper balance and we've been way off it.
@craig8638 okay, then congress should make laws that specifically lay out how to solve that problem. That's the correct way to solve this, not having agencies make up for congress not doing their job.
@@kitsuneneko2567 oh yeah, Congress is going to do something. Republicans won’t do anything to protect you from financial institutions or companies that want to poison your water and air.
They’ve proven time and time again they’re only on the side of big business.
This will just tie things up in court, and there is a reason Elon Musk and Mark Cuban were paying the bills of the guy who brought the case about financial fraud. They don’t want to be fine by the SEC. Why do you think the richest people on the planet were trying to get rid of Chevron. So they could bend you over .
Pease help me be a presidential candidate. No one want to give me a job, and they want me to be on a disability. No one wants to respect my word, because I hear rock music, and because a homosexual liger marked me as someone of no worth. Lions Tigers and Bears: Joey Montana, Justin Bieber, The Most High's Black Messaih, The Cardigens
As before, the right wing belief is the naturally correct one.
Nope
Huh? Trickle down economics is a right wing belief and it has no merit.
@@selcouth86 facts
@@selcouth86 The republicans started that under Reagan and still useing it
Agencies like the EPA and SEC work to protect the well-being of average citizens…they help create a safer and more level environment for both businesses and consumer….they prevent businesses from maximizing profits at the expense of our health…
business maximize profits at the expense of the people and our environment
Who are you holding water for big corporations. You think they care about you?
Anyone who thinks government agencies work in our best interests is delusional
These agencies are just stepping stones to the big gig at the corporations they regulate. Look at the FDA and the pharma companies. Three letter agencies have too much power for unelected positions
@@MikeW165 the EPA is Not carrying water for big corporations man….Big corporations and the fascist maga/trump cabal are against the EPA and against any regulatory agency that oversees corporations. what the hell are you talking about?
The good thing about this is that instead of the administration just moving things over to the EPA (for instance) for the experts to implement, it will now be in the hands of the lawmakers. Which means it will need to be debated, and it will be in public. Not behind closed doors. This will work to the GOP's disadvantage down the road. They just don't know it yet.
What is this guy even saying! Overturning Chevron Doctrine removes expert's opinion allowing corporations free range without a care about the people only the profits. This is actually scary
It's amazing how many truly evil people are coming out of the woodwork now complaining about this potentially massive jump in freedom.
Its absolutely the right move. The powers of the alphabet soup agencies have gotten way out of hand
BS
“Why letting the leopard eat my face off was the right thing”
In an era where judges are appointed because of their political stripe (Eileen Cannon in FL) and some are nearly unfit to serve because of lack of knowledge in a scientific field, this ruling throws VERY technical challenges to the courts where many judges are simply unfit to rule on anything even remotely technical.
If anyone reading this can recall when the Senate interviewed the heads of tech companies (about 6 years ago) they'll also recall just how out of their depths these elected officials are. There is not much difference between an elected Senator and an appointed Federal judge as to their route to office, so now rather than esteemed scientists making rules we'll have judges who can barely get out of bed making the rulings.
Most scientists can't even agree on climate change, covid vaccines and evolution. Most science is based on theories, not facts.
I hope you're right Ty. The quality of food, water, shelter is essential.
Up till now:
Agency makes rule
Industry sues agency
Court has to make decision
Now:
Agency makes rule
Court decides if rule is using the right legal interpretation.
Industry cant sue the agency since it was the courts decision.
I think thats what the change results in. This change protects the agencies from being taken to court everytime they make a new rule. Its a good thing i think. Precedence in interpretation also matters a lot.
that's a very bad interpretation of this. Let me help
Up till now:
New president comes in, Agency gets new leadership and interprets rules differently
Agency makes a rule
Industry sues agency to get rid of the rule
Court tells Industry that Current administrations Agency's interpretation of the rule is final
Now:
Agency makes rule, doesnt matter who's in charge anymore
Industry ignores rule claiming the rule is vague
Agency cannot enforce their interpretation of the rule unless congress passes a law implementing the current administrations agencies interpretation of the rule
@@xackbellegaming3491 but why is congress still involved when the law already exists for the agency to make regulations out of it?
The laws already exist. The agencies before now could interprete the law and make specific do's and dont's which would be final.
If industries dont like these do's and dont's they could take the agency to court hoping the court can tell the agency they've interpreted the law wrong so they have to scale back the regulation.
Now it looks like the agencies can still make the do's and dont's (regulations) by interpreting the laws (already passed by congress and signed by the president) BUT it is not final until the court says the agencies intepretation of the laws is correct allowing the proposed regulations to stand.
Congress has already done the work by passing the laws so they shouldnt be involved again. Just the courts. This is good because industry wouldnt be able to waste everyones time by suing the agencies since its the courts that have the power to approve regulations, no longer the agencies. Even though agencies still make regulations.
Not that the rule is vague just that the law in which the rule is attempting to enforce is vague from the getgo.
Chevron DEFERENCE meant that the lower courts had to defer to the interpretation of the law provided by alphabet boys as long as that interpretation wasn't bat shit crazy. Tie goes to the alphabet boys. Now alphabet boys have to prove that you broke a law and not just a "rule"/ their interpretation of the law.
Weaker wetland regulations and now this. Pathetic that the court is making decisions that scientists, engineers, and the experts should be making. If needed, then go to court and each side can bring in their own experts. Profit over environmental and human health is not acceptable.
Scientists and experts go to the highest bidders.
Why aren't you raising your concern on how biden administration is handling palestine, ohio disaster or the environental impact of war in ukraine and gaza?
@@rogerleonard5351 Not all of them. I was a regulator at the state level and had some amazing colleagues. Knew some amazing scientists in the private sector who refused to do unethical work for big business.
Scientists, engineers and experts have absolutely no authority to create laws, only Congress can!
That sure was a lot of words to say very little.
So, basically it's just moving power from the administrative branch to the courts.
I don't know. It kind of sounds to me like they may have created another headache for the courts.
For some reason these "simplification" efforts always seem to require an extra couple lawyers at some point.
No it means that the 3 letter agency "interpretation/reinterpretations" do not hold the same level of power as law. It puts more onus on federal agency to judicially prove that they have been granted the power they claim they have. Chevron deference gave unelected beaurocrats the pseudo ability to write laws via their new regulatory reinterpretation.
This impact can be seen with things like osha covid over reach, dear colleagues letter/ title ix kangaroo courts, atf bump stock and arm brace shenanigans, etc.
😂😂😂😂😂😂 Forbes is trash.
A lot of people here don't have the slightest idea how it actually works.
The agencies didn't create the legislation, Congress did.
Congress would come up with some vague legislation and defer to the agency to create regulations within the confines of said legislation.
Now that's gone, Congress is going to have to be super detailed in their legislation. They're going to have to do it themselves. Since Republicans aren't the most productive, nor are their policies all that popular, it's going to be interesting.
Short term, the increase in campaign contributions for them will be good.
Long term, they screwed up and don't even realize it yet.
They're not doing a good job finishing up the details themselves, and they become huge self-serving quasi government agents with power but no checks and balances. It may suck to put this back on congress but it's their role and responsibility granted by the Constitution! We the people have no recourse with the agencies directly.
When Republicans have to spell out "put a waste dump into this pro-veterans bill" instead of having it be vague and up to a conservative agency to interpret freely, it's going to be pretty funny watching them lose elections from it, just like they did when the deeply unpopular Dobbs decision was handed down.
That sucks
Ty Cobbs, a lawyer, is like most lawyers and judges. In an expert scientific technical discussion, they wouldn't know the difference between a fish and a frying pan. Why expert agency rules should not be "interpreted" by courts. It's a power grab. Let me know Ty Cobb, when you become an expert in the vast array of environmental science, drugs science, clinical trials, statistical evaluation. Oh wait. You never will. Or at all knowledgeable and experienced in corporate America or public works agency approvals for product. Oh wait. You never will.
So we should give that power to the Legislative branch. Oh wait is already there. The executive branch has no power to write or interpret the rules of law with the force of the federal government. The separation of power are quite clear and exist as a check and balance. The "experts" should be assisting congress in writing new laws no creating them via executive rule making and enforcement.
17,000 regulations overturned with this ruling. This includes the legal amounts of poo, rat feces, dead bugs, animals, plant matter and warning labels such as allergy notices now have no caps. It is up to congress to explicitly state how much poo, rat poo, pee, bugs, plant materials can go into your food or tap water. Exploding Takata airbags are now lawful until Congress explicitly states the regulations around explosive power and materials that are used. The same applies to brakes, brake pads, dust, asbestos and dumping toxic waste into your rivers and lakes. Ty Cobb says its the right move because this just made billions of dollars for foreign national companies that no longer need to abide by food inspectors and food inspector penalties and fines.
I disagree. Congress needs to get off their butts and define these. Keep whats established or change it. Not hard to do. Committes decide that were voted in.
@napoleonsmith7793 defining as in defining every single bug, feces and plant or animals species that may or may not enter your foods? How it used to work was "harmful contaminants may not exceed 100ppm." The agencies then defined harmful contaminants because congress cannot be expected to list every single contaminant known because they literally are elected people of various backgrounds. Do you think MTG knows what a safe amount of poo in your drinking water is? Because as of yesterday, the EPAs regulation of zero poo particles in drinking water is now unconstitutional and cannot be enforced until Congress explicitly states the amount of healthy poo you can drink in your water or food.
Fsscists always use fear to take away rights of individuals.
White powder
Palesy
Food is about to get even more rubbery
STOP TELLING ME "why it's the right move". That is an opinion. I want the facts. I will tell YOU what the right move is. Remember, your organization represents a commodity. It's a commodity with low fidelity, so tread lightly. I am not the commodity. Therefore I will tell YOU what is right and what is wrong. When I say I, I mean we...as in "We the people". Expect us to be more engaged and far more demanding on you, the commodity. Else, atrophy and eventually go away. Makes no difference to me, especially since you want to peddle facts like you have some inside information by telling me "why it's the right move". Get over yourselves.
Right move for Big Oil, high gas prices, and more severe weather.
Oh you are part of the cult of weather.. thanks for letting us know.
It changed a degree. Climate change is so scary. 😆
@@SaltyBlackSheep A degree is the difference between solid Ice and liquid water
@@Savage_Thinker I never heard of the cult of weather. Must be some maga crap. I'm in the cult of facts.
@@SaltyBlackSheep And look at what that one degree has done: more and stronger tornadoes. More and stronger hurricanes. Worse thunderstorms, more wildfires. Imagine what the next degree will bring.
Rainbows are cool.
Is it just me or is this hilarious?