Warren Bill Would Overturn Supreme Court Decision Gutting Federal Agency Power.
2 years ago by ModerateImprovement to c/news
Regulations are "unconstitutional"? Hmmmmmmm š¤ Is SCOTUS bound by anything? Seems like they can rule however they like.
I think their argument is more that the agencies aren't allowed to be the ones to say how a law is applied as far as regulations go. If a regulation is vague enough the EPA isn't allowed to clarify anymore, it needs to go to a (more than likely rubber stamp) court where the judges decide, instead of, you know, anyone who would actually have expertise... It's legally "reasonable" but practically insane.
Why aren't the bodies allowed to say how relevant laws are applied? Isn't the whole point behind regulatory bodies that the government will grant regulators certain powers with legislation?
I'm not a legal expert, but in Australia at least there are a bunch of regulators that work to legislation, but they totally come up with extra clarifications and rules themselves within the powers they've been granted, and you are obligated to follow those rules.
For example: the fair work commission in Australia sets the minimum wage every year, no legislation required. Employers can't just decide they're unreasonable and not follow them, unless they want to be taken to court (or go to jail, in certain states like Victoria).
Now, I have no idea what the laws are that give the US EPA their powers, but either SCOTUS is totally out of line here, or the legislation sucks.
The (bullshit) scotus argument is that congress can't grant decision powers to federal agencies cause hurrdurr constitution.
Basically, for ~40 years we've run on a SCOTUS decision referred to as the "Chevron Decision." What that did is direct federal courts to defer to agencies on interpretations of relevant laws and statutes, because federal courts were being bogged down by every. little. bit. of. minutiae. around the practical application of a bills intention."Agency says brown, interested party says black, BOOM LAWSUIT" is an exaggeration but not by much. Instead, Chevron gives agencies the room for experts in the field to draft appropriate regulations etc in service of congress' bills. "Agency says brown, interested party says black, well too bad the experts say brown is the best choice." Can't tie them up in court over everything.
Now, with Chevron overturned, Republicans can start tying everything they dont like up in court again. Plus, with the hyper conservative activist SCOTUS judges, now they can run any regulation or policy straight up the appeal ladder to have them all ruled "unconstitutional" with only the occasional less important burner case turned down in a halfass attempt to look "impartial"
SCOTUS is unchecked by the rest of the federal government. The only thing that would limit their power is a constitutional amendment, which requires 38 states to individually ratify it at the level of their state governments, not their federal congresspeople.
There is literally no way for congress to affect the supreme court once it has 9 justices, or contradict its rulings on laws they call "unconstitutional", short of impeaching supreme court justices or packing the court with more than 9 justices. Once enough of the court is full of fascists or enablers, it's EXTREMELY hard to escape fascism without a constitutional convention.
You could instruct the federal agencies to ignore court rulings, effectively undoing Marbury vrs Madison.
That's a constitutional crisis, but what is the court gonna do? Call the FBI? Send in the military?
You can ask the Cherokee people what the court does with an uncooperative federal government, but you won't find any in Georgia.
Maybe that's just fascism with our side in charge though.
Yeah unfortunately once fascism sets in there's literally no way to get rid of it without using more fascism or violence. And considering that fascism necessarily requires the threat of violence, that previous statement can be simplified to "Fascism can only be defeated with violence"
In theory that was supposed to be the strength of SCOTUS, that being secure in their employment for life (or until retirement), they had no incentive to judge along party lines for fear of future prospects. However, we've seen that judges can still be both very partisan and entirely unqualified and we can now do nothing to remove them. Turns out bribery and threats still work on them
Is SCOTUS bound by anything?
flipping open my Lockean theory of self-governance
Strictly speaking, the power of government is in its ability to achieve (relatively) peaceful compliance. The SCOTUS decision creates an opportunity for individuals to behave in defiance of the written law with a certain fearlessness. A President can go full Andrew Jackson and tell the judges to enforce that decision, but he's still got to command a bureaucracy full of people who can be swayed in the other direction.
What happens to a regulation that nobody is willing to enforce? What happens to a federal regulation that runs afoul of state law, in a district where municipal/state law enforcement will enthusiastically arrest and local DAs prosecute a federal agent?
I would say that's the real power of the SCOTUS. Opening the legal door for disobedience and negligence at the federal level, while state-level revolt occurs downstream.
The Loper Bright ruling was that when taken on appeal that the courts no longer have to accept a reasonable agency interpretation over a reasonable (or more reasonable) interpretation by the other party.
And the rulings isn't just for the EPA but all other federal agencies like the IRS, ICE, and the FDA. This bill is a double edged sword depending on who has the executive seat.
I mean that power was there since article 3 got drafted, and reaffirmed by the text of the APA.
The issue is the legislature not being able to pass laws due to the filibuster. This has lead to agencies being forced to take up their own interpretations to adapt language beyond it's original meaning to attempt to complete their goals, like w/ the Loper Bright case.
to adapt language beyond itās original meaning
If the executive's rules leading to Loper Bright were not reasonable, the court wouldn't have had a reason to overturn Chevron in order to decide against it.
Edit: the fact that court first wisely delegated the power to set regulatory rules doesn't change the fact that they unwisely took it back.
This bill is a double edged sword depending on who has the executive seat.
Not at all. It gives substantial power to the lower courts and strips it from the executive's cabinet secretaries.
For real. The regulations are the "reasonable" standards. If you can't meet the bare minimum you can fuck off.
Basically agencies were given power unchecked without passing any laws giving them that power. Supreme court decision was correct. Congress needs to get off their butts and get laws passed if they want them so bad, and stop relying on shaky historical precedents.
Kind of hard to pass bills when one political party is dedicated to nothing but corruption and obstruction but ok.
Yes, it is hard to pass bills that only half of congress wants. Again, the system working as intended.
I honestly agree with the decision in a vacuum, but in reality I can't help but feel the decision was made very much with corporate interests in mind. Yeah congress should've gotten their ducks in a row long before now, but the real winner here is corporations, not constituents.
Can you imagine a full majority blue government again? Last time we got health care light, who knows what we might get a little of this time?
Maybe some of that freedom your nutjobs keep banging on about.
Make no mistake that small progress is still progress and given the amount of money spent on regression, don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
If given the choice of something better, never go for the other option because the first is not better enough
That's what the saying means. It doesn't mean perfect isn't good. It means perfect is great, but don't let it stop good.
just remember: "perfect" is a journey, not a destination. it something to strive for knowing full well that you'll never get there because it's impossible.
donāt let perfect be the enemy of good.
This sentiment is way too rare
Except literally every time someone on the left points out the Dem leadership habit of inching in the right direction while not doing much to stop their fascist counterparts from yarding if not miling in the opposite.
What little progress conservative Democrats DO graciously deign to bestow on the unwashed masses is the equivalent of getting a 2% raise in a year where your unavoidable expenses such as food, shelter, and medicine rose by double digits.
That's not good. That's insufficient.
So give us more Democrats and you'll get more results. It's a simple question of mathematics. We can't pass laws unless you give us the numbers in Congress.
No, republican fear mongering, and their refusal to recognize facts has all but murdered nuance. You can't have nuanced discussion because a significant portion of the populace have been delightfully gobbling up a buffet of lies. There is no nuance about reproductive healthcare when abortion is murder. There is no nuance about the electoral system when every election is rigged. There is no nuance about equality in law when the president is immune from all crimes. The Internet didn't destroy nuance, certain people have been throwing nuance out the window as fast as possible because an educated and empowered populace weakens their grip on the wheel of power.
The problem can be that some progress can be used to placate the masses by halting the momentum.
Obamacare was a step in the right direction, but also enough to kill the momentum towards the actual solutions that would have provided universal healthcare. Even those wouldn't have been perfect, but now the drive has plataeued and good enough for most people means we won't get good enough for everyone any time soon.
Decriminalizing weed instead of legalizing and regulating is another. It doesn't actually solve the inherent problems with the war on drugs because the drug trade that does involve criminal activity is still present. This kind of situation can backfire by reinforcing people's belief in the lies about drugs inherently causing violent crime.
So the sentiment is correct, but not all progress is good enough and partial progress can be a long term negative.
Obamacare was a step in the right direction, but also enough to kill the momentum towards the actual solutions
Bullshit. If we'd kept the supermajority, democrats would have EXPANDED Obamacare.
Republicans are stopping progress. Democrats didn't go "eh fuck it I don't feel like helping people anymore". They were blocked by Republicans.
"Don't let perfect be the enemy of better."
āDonāt butcher things your parents taught youā
Make no mistake that small progress is still progress
That's an argument I remember from under Obama. But the theory was that these small progressions would compound over time. In practice, the Dems don't make progress, they inhibit it. Liberals draw in an enormous amount of labor and financial power to campaign, then immediately sell out to corporate interests. They pass stop-gap bills to splinter progressive movements into factions of haves and have-nots. Then they collapse in the face of a reactionary resurgence.
The reactionaries impose huge reversals of existing New Deal and Great Society programs. They engage in flagrant criminality without any form of censure. They prosecute wars to loot natural resources abroad. Then they ship domestic capital overseas to dilute labor power at home and swell the ranks of the underemployed. They lard us up with debts to the same plutocrats who put them in office and leave Democrats with the bill when they finally slink out of office. And they balloon the national security state to surveil, suppress, and murder protesters and dissidents in nascent left-wing movements.
The "small progress" is a ratchet. It isn't progress at all. We're regressing rapidly. The liberal party seems content to prevent any kind of contrary political pressure, while the conservative movement goes all-in on paramilitary fascism.
Go away.
Itās a bit disingenuous to say we had a full blue government. Technically we had it but our majority in the senate didnāt really exist due to false Dems like Manchin
But doesn't need 2/3rds to remove, only majority. Which then gets back to the "pseudo" dems that appear anything it gets close to having progressive legislation passed
Removing the filibuster is a nuclear option that will ensure Republicans will be unable to be stopped next time they're in power. It's a stupid idea.
Manchin wasn't even in the Senate yet. Lieberman was an independent that endorsed Romney 3 years later.
There were senators from Louisiana and Missouri in that majority.
Also Franken wasn't seated until like June because of recounts and lawsuits. Ted Kennedy was on deaths door and passed away 2 months later. His replacement was seated a couple months after that and then Scott Brown won in fucking Massachusetts in January.
They ended up with something like 109 working days in which Democrats could override a Republican filibuster. They passed 2 major pieces of legislation. Dodd Frank and the ACA.
I miss the days when the arguments were whether we should have universal healthcare or whether we should force insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. Arguments over whether we should have a democracy or not just aren't the same...
- As president, it won't matter. She'll sign anything her party gives her to sign, because there's zero reason for her to pick a fight with congressional democrats.
- In 2019 she literally and specifically backed Medicare for All, so this claim is factually incorrect.
Harris healthcare plan in 2020 was to the left of Bidens, She called for Medicare for all. She dissagreed with Bernie about banning private insurance.
She was not against universal healthcare. I doubt she is now. If Dems sweep the house and somehow picked up 10 seats in the Senate (impossible) she might try to go for it.
It's not impossible in 2026 for Dems to make big gains in the Senate, but it is very, very unlikely.
Can you imagine a full majority blue government again?
Easily. But when so many of the elected officials on Team Blue are as subservient to private business interests, plutocrats, and foreign state governments as their counterparts on Team Red, I'm not sure what good it'll do.
100 Joe Manchins and Kristen Sinemas won't do us any favors.
BoTh sIdEzZz
Bullshit and no one is buying it anymore.
Then why are you here?
If you don't believe in electoral politics that's fine. But you should be off organizing union drives, or mutual aid societies, or literally any other venue for democratic power.
Why would you care which corporate shill holds office?
Your presence here suggests that it does, in fact, matter who wins elections, or which team holds power.
One step at a time bud.
If you try and do everything at once you get nothing done at all.
Unless you do everything at once with conflicting interests across different parts of "everything" and you get an omnibus bill, which is the only way to actually get anything done in congress nowadays (for some god-forsaken reason)
This is how black people end up counting as 3/5ths of a person.
Or if we don't try to do everything at once or we do nothing, same exact outcome, nothing at all.
Nobody's going to see any traction on any of this until something horrible and messy happens. We're going to wait until most people won't stand it anymore
Yeah, they've gotten to the point of saying the legislature cannot delegate it's authority. If it stands it functionally makes modern government impossible. If Congress cannot delegate to the executive, and it cannot take on executive style decision like the Westminster system, the government just cannot function.
They won't have to. Lower courts do it.
Whats going to happen is that every time a corporation doesn't like a regulation, they will sue to stop it. If possible in the specific case, they will shop for the right circuit court that's stuffed with judges favorable to them. The regulation will be stopped from taking hold while the case is in process. The federal bench is already overloaded, so this will take years. The corp will continue as they were in the meantime.
Even worse, a corp can now bring up cases against old regulations that started affecting them. An old corp getting into a new area, or a spinoff subsidiary taking their old business, could challenge any regulation that suddenly affects them.
This isn't like, say, school integration, where the President helps out the enforcement by sending the National Guard. Everything happens within the courts, plus the agencies respecting a court ordered stop like they always have.
They overturned the courts previous decision. Technically it wasn't a law before, it just was heavily implied (as in Congress specifically left things vague bc they wanted federal agencies to fill in the blanks in accordance to the Chevron doctrine).
Basically, there wasn't any part that was unconstitutional, they just said the court was overstepping their boundaries when they "created" the Chevron doctrine.
Edit: please read the comment below, it seems like my understanding wasn't quite right
The court basically said it was a separation of powers issue. The basic powers of the branches are:
- The Legislative (Congress) creates laws
- The Executive (President) actually puts those laws into action (they are "executed" by this aptly named branch)
- The Judicial (courts) interpret legality of the actions of the Executive branch based on the wording of the laws passed by Congress, and the constitutionality of those laws (that is, if the law itself is even legal to be enforced)
The Chevron Deference doctrine was the courts saying "Congress occasionally writes laws vaguely and we don't have expertise on every subject matter, so we are going to defer the decision-making of what exactly the law means to actual experts in the Executive branch." Congress has written laws using this logic, intentionally granting power to the Executive branch that would otherwise reside with Congress (i.e. Congress says "how much of X particulate in the air is too much? We could write a specific law stating that 500 ppm is too much, but it's a lot of work to do that for every particulate, and the science gets updated over time, so we'll just tell the Executive to place 'reasonable limits' and call it a day.")
Now the Court has said "That power you've ceded to the Executive branch? That should be ours because it's our job to interpret what laws mean. We now decide how much of X particulate is too much, even when we mix it up with Y particulate."
It's a blatant power grab by the Court and a separation of powers issue. Congress SHOULD be able to remedy it by specifying that this decision-making power should reside with the Executive branch and the Judiciary won't be able to say "no mine". I mean, this Court WILL, but a legitimate Court wouldn't.
Out of curiosity, what would stop SCOTUS being like "Nah, this law goes against the constitution"?
It's my understanding that SCOTUS has the power to repeal laws. Wouldn't the only real way to codify would to put it in the constitution?
Until SCOTUS declares amendments to the constitution to be unconstitutional.
SCOTUS "Mumble, mumble...found fathers...mumble, mumble, clearly unconstitutional...mumble, mumble, amendment not ratified correctly."
Here's my understanding as a layman, please correct me if I'm wrong.
SCOTUS could block the creation of a law if it was deemed unconstitutional, but even with a conservative SCOTUS, it's unlikely they would in this case. As in many cases, SCOTUS didn't overturn a law here, but rather changed their decision on the interpretation of the law, specifically the Administrative Procedure Act. If congress passes a law that explicitly delegates certain powers to agencies, or codifies regulations that had previously been defined by an agency, that would be harder to fight since the APA, as far as I can tell, does not prohibit it. Warren's bill is basically saying "if we can't implicitly delegate power to agencies to create regulations, we should at least be forced to quickly review suggested regulations to prevent them from getting stuck in congress."
Again, this is just my understanding as a layman. IANAL
There was the Voting Rights Act case, Shelby County v. Holder. A case in which SCOTUS struck a provision in the Voting Rights Act as they declared it was unconstitutional. If you can declare a provision unconstitutional, what would stop SCOTUS from declaring an entire law unconstitutional?
We've already seen a SCOTUS decide it can do anything it wants.
Again, they can, but it's less likely. It really depends on how much the genuine threat of civil unrest and violence compares against whatever benefit they get from voting a certain way (which, in perfect world, would be nothing).
Truthfully I don't think this particular ruling was incorrect or outside the reasonable extent of their powers. Do I think the timing of it was motivated by corporate and political greed? Absolutely. It's abundantly clear that the decision, popular among conservatives, was meant to serve as a Trump "win" based on the justices he put in place (again, disturbingly contrary to the intended purpose of the SCOTUS). It's also a potentially dangerous decision to make without any time allotted to get critical regulations codified by congress.
That all being said, while I in no way trust in the impartiality of the current SCOTUS, I do think repealing a law without fairly universal bipartisan support is a decent bit more extreme than what they did here. I think there needs to be a balance between genuine, concerning possibilities and doom-and-gloom panic.
They didnāt rule it unconstitutional, they ruled it incompatible with the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act. So the law could change it.
Granted, they could later try to rule it unconstitutional, but it would kill Looper Bright.
With Marbury v Madison, the court gave itself the authority to interpret the constitution and the laws that congress enacts and the president enforces. These are statutory laws.
The other kind of law is court precedent. It is the law that the court creates based in the cases that come before it. It is inextricably linked to statutory law. Of course the highest court can overturn the law of lower courts or its own decisions.
Yes, the court can strike down laws.
The only way to get around the court is to amend the constitution itself. When amending, the language should be plain and clear so that SCOTUS cannot misinterpret it. Though there are several amendments that have been interpreted various ways over time.
Amending the constitution is a difficult process because it requires a lot of agreement between the members of congress/ senators and the states. See article V of the constitution.
There's another built in way for Congress and the President to get around SCOTUS. Just ignore the ruling. The most permanent way is an amendment but ignoring it and enforcing the law anyways does work. For example Banks will freeze accounts if the regulator tells them they have to. They aren't going to make a principled stand for you.
If a regulator enforces a law against you that the court has deemed unconstitutional, you can sue the regulator for damages with the expectation that the court will be on your side.
The more obvious ābuilt inā option is for the president to pack the court.
The supreme court could just rule democracy unconstitutional while they're at it. Clarence Thomas won the presidency despite not being in the ballot, Trump and Harris both lose. Chaos then ensues.
... Are we suddenly going to start fighting the supreme Court? Finally? Finally?
Approved.
At this point in time it isn't enough. Republicans and the conservative justices will find whatever loopholes there are. They need to be advocating to change the role of the Supreme Court to an advisory agency only, where they have no decision-making powers.
The SCOTUS is necessary in a functioning system of checks and balances on power amongst the three branches of the federal government. The problem we have now is a court stacked with looney judges subverting the will of the people. We need a more effective means of maintaining balance in the court.
Sure have. The SCOTUS takes up cases from the US Circuit Courts of Appeals. Appellate courts certainly serve their purpose, as district courts can and do get decisions wrong. But, the SCOTUS needs to be balanced enough to where one political viewpoint doesn't dominate their decisions and subsequent precedents.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the modsā discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles donāt match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the modsā discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles donāt match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
For anyone curious, this bill is fighting against the conservative SCOTUS decision that basically said fossil fuel and other companies don't have to listen to the EPA or follow environmental regulations if the company has a "reasonable"(undefined) argument against said regulation.
So this law should get made. Get made good.
save