The Supreme Court Could Soon Fix 40-Year Chevron Mistake-But If It Doesn't, Freedom Will Take A Hit

Steve Forbes talks about two crucial cases taken on by the Supreme Court involving Chevron deference, which gave government agencies massive powers-and if the top court doesn't reign them in, citizens' freedoms will continue to be eroded.
Read the full story on Forbes:
Subscribe to FORBES: www.youtube.co...
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...
Stay Connected
Forbes newsletters: newsletters.ed...
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
Forbes covers the intersection of entrepreneurship, wealth, technology, business and lifestyle with a focus on people and success.

[@TheJHMAN1]

This affects the ATF big time. This will be great news for the 2A community.

[@bobnewton545]

Right on brother!!

[@Sandhill1988]

Yes! Now Abolish the ATF, and overturn every anti second amendment judgment that has been put in place since the beginning of time. Start with the NFA.

[@stellabella6839]

We can only hope this does not embolden the swamp to stack the court. Its time the lawmakers were held to account for doing their job and not delegating their duties to the lobby controlled bureaucrats. Let’s hope this will enable the next administration to strip these “expert” bureaucrats to apply laws on a whim. Time will tell if this is a step to leave our constitution and rights alone. The lunatics have nothing but time to bastardize this ruling. 😊 cheers!

[@DaDansinBear]

@@stellabella6839 Joe Biden needs to stack the courts now. Six of the Supreme Court justices are criminals.

[@costcontrolaccounting4613]

Federal agencies making rules aren’t rules, but law. It’s our congress who are required to make laws. Forcing a business to take on federal agents and making them pay for them is tyrannical. When I think of reducing government, I think of reducing the powers these agencies have given themselves.

[@Ston247]

Orwell was a genius.

[@Coinpease]

Orwell was a socialist

[@superviro]

Thank you for posting this. This isn't getting enough media attention. One can only speculate as to why that is.......

[@ElToroCrypto]

ATF punching the air right now.. 😂

[@richheaton4008]

Idiocracy brought to you by Steve Forbes

[@rudytorres9910]

Thank you Mr. Forbes you told me about the sneaky way government agencies were able to overstep the authority of a law.

[@paulryan7745]

Thank you, that was well done. The hyperbole going around today (6/28/24) when the SC struck down Chevron is crazy.

[@bennyhbaby9835]

And here we are now

[@user-dc6in6cf4w]

I like how mr forbes has two views and opinions on this law, especially on the present abolition of it.

[@keithnewton1780]

Thanks for the information

[@Patricia-vd9xh]

BS - The oil industry lobbied Congress and got oil production excluded from the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) so oil companies do not have to clean up any contamination that they cause of water, soil, and air. No other industry has this privilege and it costs tax payers a fortune. Since that industry does not want to comply with the law on most things, enforcement officers must accompany them to view their operations. There is no great cost here, they just need to let them ride on the boat with all the oil workers. Forbes is a fascist interested only in protecting the wealthy. Steve Forbes is paid by the oil industry to publicly defend their practices. The Gorbes Dsmily became wealthy by importing opium from Asia.

[@asozialesnetzwerk]

OK. This Chevron stuff actually sounds like reasonable stuff.

[@climatehero]

It is true that governments are over-reaching. Outlawing the ICE for example is against the principle of the free market.

[@bW9taeH4]

People aren't moving to EVs because the government says so. They are doing it because they like the cars better. For now, and for years to come, there's nothing stopping anybody from buying an ICEV. There are small incentives at purchase time for EVs but ICEV owners get gasoline for far less money than people pay in other countries, and the US has huge subsidies for the oil industry. It's hardly a free market economy.
For now, EVs work better for some people. They are more convenient, have lower operating costs, and have less scheduled maintenance. But for others, they won't be a good fit with current infrastructure. Not everybody can charge from home. But when the Biden administration introduced subsidies for charging infrastructure, people wanted to make it political, ignoring that the combined total allocated for EV charging is less than the cost of two miles of new interstate highway in an urban area. Infrastructure is supposed to be the role of the government when it's for the general good of the people, even if most people will never use a particular highway or charging station or bridge. Without better infrastructure, it creates a class of people who can get better, more convenient and cheaper to operate cars, and leaves other people with cars that they have to take to inconvenient locations to charge rather than it happening automatically when they are parked.
Once the infrastructure problem is fixed, the government won't have to force anybody to buy EVs. It's doubtful that people will want to stick with ICEVs except in rare cases.

[@Zeupater]

The Constitution says nothing about any free market principles, and certainly not any particular person’s ideas about whatever the means. If We The People decide to ban something because it’s harmful, that’s our prerogative. If We The People don’t want corrupt politicians or corporations deciding how much mercury can be in our water, then we can make more sensible decisions based on what scientists and doctors say.

[@OttawaMikes]

​@bW9taeH4 once the infrastructure problem is solved? Means tax dollars subsidies EV's.

[@bW9taeH4]

@@OttawaMikes You do realize that infrastructure for non-EVs also use tax dollars, or is that news to you? The entire subsidy in the IRA for EV charging is less than the cost of building two miles of new interstate highway in an urban area. And that's a road that neither of us is likely to drive on. That's the nature of infrastructure. It keeps the entire country moving, not just the parts that you like. I'd be fine without any EV subsidies if oil industry subsidies went away. If Americans had to pay as much for gasoline as people in other countries, I'd expect ICEVs to die out much sooner. Don't complain about one subsidy if you rely on others.
One other thing. I compared it to a two mile stretch of highway, when the US has almost 47 THOUSAND miles of interstate highway. EV subsidies are a drop in the bucket for something that will allow interstate travel for lots of people. Also, most of the cost of new infrastructure for EV charging is being paid privately, unlike other infrastructure projects such as roads.

[@frankmccann29]

Rome killed itself with admin code?

[@exDivinityFPS]

Nice bullshit propaganda piece. Thanks for showing me that Forbes is absolutely not worth paying any attention to.

[@brendaprice2951]

You'll Find out in a couple of days

[@mactek6033]

Fixed.

[@circles79]

what a tool

[@thewayuwearurhat1751]

Thanks Steve, you're the man

[@danielduarte5073]

American fascism

[@thomasw911]

Couldn't agree more

[@davidbradley3735]

Understanding the French Revolution??

[@carolinegarza8285]

This is about taking authority away from the FDA to ban the abortion pill.
The courts have never cared for fishermen, and fishermen don't have resources to hire attorneys to take their issues all the way to the high courts system.
It's about abortion, not fish

[@leoofontes]

So its a win win, what a great day

[@juggalogan]

Bruh your insane

[@juggalogan]

This is about federal government having complete control and take rights away from the state. Each state has a department of natural resources and provide regulations. Federal government doesn't want that. They want to put in their own regulations.

[@rachelt2010]

🎉🎉🎉

[@thaisboyd]

FORBES is the big business entity with far to much money and power and always greedy for more.

[@sherylallen2962]

Sure and it will give them complete power and take away agency power!!

[@OttawaMikes]

Good

[@bobnewton545]

Throwing out Chevron will give power back to the people. It circumvents the constitution that made our Rebublic great,

[@JacobConkin]

Hes just reading a piece of paper not even looking at the camera. Anybody could have read this. Very unappealing

[@ChristopherRunyon-ql5qe]

Chevron is an invalid argument.