Supreme Court Overrules Chevron

[venomballistics]

Using 80% receivers as an example....
Selling the 80% with a jig or fixture to complete the machining process was all fine and dandy until the ATF legislated from the holster, deeming it a complete receiver.
This, as well as scads of other regulations formed in similar manner are now wide open to hearings where they can be overturned.
These regs can be reborn, however, via the legislative process through Congress, where this sort of thing should be done in the first place.

 

[BC38]

JMO, but I have always been against the idea of unelected, and unaccountable bureaucrats having the power to interpret and enforce laws at their whim.

That was NOT the intent of the Founding Fathers when they set up our 3-branch system of governance where the WE THE PEOPLE elect the authorities that govern us.

Un-elected bureaucrats who don't ever have to be concerned about being voted out by WE THE PEOPLE - no matter WHAT they do - are not being held accountable to pursue OUR best interests. Congress has abdicated far too much of their Constitutional authority and responsibility to these appointed - rather than elected - agents of our government.

I think today's ruling against the doctrine of Chevron Deference is absolutely a win for those of us who want to see our country return to a Constitutional form of government, rather than the current status quo of bureaucratic government.

JMO...

 

[BC38]

I wouldn't expect anything to "go away" without litigation. By rights, every federal agency should look at every regulation to see if it falls within the scope of LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL.

I hope that would happen, but I don't think it will under the current administration.

Sadly, this issue isn't specific to any particular administration.
It is a problem with the ADMINISTRATIVE STATE.

Administrations come and go, but unfortunately the un-elected bureaucrats who operate behind the scenes DON'T seem to change or get replaced. In fact a lot of them CAN'T be replaced, due to being in positions protected by law or by union agreements.

They stay in their secure, cushy, government jobs for decade after DECADE - through multiple changes in administrations.

Is it any wonder that things change so slowly - if they ever change at all?

 

[bushmaster1313]

Using 80% receivers as an example....
Selling the 80% with a jig or fixture to complete the machining process was all fine and dandy until the ATF legislated from the holster, deeming it a complete receiver.
This, as well as scads of other regulations formed in similar manner are now wide open to hearings where they can be overturned.
These regs can be reborn, however, via the legislative process through Congress, where this sort of thing should be done in the first place.

Absolutely correct.
If the Courts interpret a law passed by Congress in a way that Congress does not like, Congress can pass a new law that makes it absolutely clear what Congress wants the law to be, and as long as the new law passes Constitutional muster the Courts and the Regulatory Agencies cannot say boo.

 

[Skeet 028]

700 bucks a day for a game warden on the boat..feeding him and providing a cabin etc. Have to provide his safety gear too?? This is a good ruling in that we have a basis to win cases against regulatory agencies that make their own Law...Like Homeland Security. We need laws to not allow middle level bureaucrats to make law by decree from the agencies. ...make law in Congress...not like BATF, SEC, DOJ and Homeland Security and others do it now. speaking of which...take the F out of BATF. The BAT was a section of the Infernal Revenue Service which taxed alcohol and tobacco. The F part is guaranteed by the Constitution. Middle level bureaucrats make laws that affect everyone...mainly because They Know Best. Ask 'em...they'll tell you! Just a few "reasonable suggestions" as the Dems like to call them. This is the most constitutional Supreme Court we have had in our lifetimes

 

[Golddollar]

I have run first hand into bureaucratic rule writing that I suspect was done by somebody trying to justify their job. For years and years, in numerous locations in 5 different states I was on the competitive chili cooking circuit. As was to be expected regarding food preparation, various health departments had rules regarding food preparation, storage, water supply, cleanliness etc., which were reasonable and reasonably enforced. I never heard of anybody having a problem with food consumed at a chili cookoff. My practice was to find beef cuts when some was on sale and freeze them at home until I had to leave for the cookoff. That worked well because partially frozen meat was easier to cube nicely.

Well, despite this impeccable record (at least in the cookoffs I took part in), somebody at the state health department decided that for a cookoff that would take place on the 4th of July, contestants could no longer bring meat they had stored directly to the cookoff. The new rule required the contestants prior to the day of the cookoff to bring their previously acquired meat to a government approved storage facility and then retrieve it the day of the cookoff. Otherwise the only other approved meat could be purchased on the day of the cookoff (if a store was open on the 4th of July) and brought directly to the cookoff (do not pass Go, do not collect $200). And you had better keep the receipt to prove that you hadn't been storing the meat yourself.

I had a hard time believing what I was hearing. I started asking questions of the people in charge and they confirmed what I heard. I was still working at the time, so I asked rhetorically, "Do you mean that I would have to take a day off work and make a 70 mile round trip to bring my meat to this approved storage facility?" Basically that's what the situation became, and I pulled out of the cookoff and said I was never coming back until that rule was rescinded. It seemed like this was a solution in search of a problem.

 

[ladder13]

Another one brewing.

Supreme Court lets a truck stop sue the Federal Reserve in latest threat to agency regulations | CNN Politics


“The Supreme Court on Monday revived a lawsuit by a North Dakota truck stop that is challenging the fees banks can charge for debit-card transactions in a ruling that could have deeper implications for other government regulations.

The decision was the latest from the Supreme Court this term that would make it easier for industries to challenge what conservative critics describe as the “administrative state”

 

[GaryS]

So you had a beef with their rule?

I have run first hand into bureaucratic rule writing that I suspect was done by somebody trying to justify their job. For years and years, in numerous locations in 5 different states I was on the competitive chili cooking circuit. As was to be expected regarding food preparation, various health departments had rules regarding food preparation, storage, water supply, cleanliness etc., which were reasonable and reasonably enforced. I never heard of anybody having a problem with food consumed at a chili cookoff. My practice was to find beef cuts when some was on sale and freeze them at home until I had to leave for the cookoff. That worked well because partially frozen meat was easier to cube nicely.

Well, despite this impeccable record (at least in the cookoffs I took part in), somebody at the state health department decided that for a cookoff that would take place on the 4th of July, contestants could no longer bring meat they had stored directly to the cookoff. The new rule required the contestants prior to the day of the cookoff to bring their previously acquired meat to a government approved storage facility and then retrieve it the day of the cookoff. Otherwise the only other approved meat could be purchased on the day of the cookoff (if a store was open on the 4th of July) and brought directly to the cookoff (do not pass Go, do not collect $200). And you had better keep the receipt to prove that you hadn't been storing the meat yourself.

I had a hard time believing what I was hearing. I started asking questions of the people in charge and they confirmed what I heard. I was still working at the time, so I asked rhetorically, "Do you mean that I would have to take a day off work and make a 70 mile round trip to bring my meat to this approved storage facility?" Basically that's what the situation became, and I pulled out of the cookoff and said I was never coming back until that rule was rescinded. It seemed like this was a solution in search of a problem.

 

[Golddollar]

So you had a beef with their rule?

< < < rimshot > > >

 

[DWalt]

I expect a floodgate of litigation to open after this ruling. The court did not touch this issue in West Virginia versus EPA, but the writing was on the wall.

This could save the economy billions of dollars in complying with endless government mandates.

A Federal judge in Louisiana just overturned the administration's (DOE) LNG export permit pause. Which it had no basis in law to impose in the first place. Just a moment...

 

[GaryS]

I'm glad he did that, although I am not sure it's directly because of Chevron being overturned. It will be very nice if it was, though.

A Federal judge in Louisiana just overturned the administration's (DOE) LNG export permit pause. Which it had no basis in law to impose in the first place. Just a moment...

 

[DWalt]

But it indeed is another example of regulatory agency overreach that should never have been allowed to happen. In this case, the pause was originated in the White House and passed to DOE to implement primarily to keep the greenies happy and voting the right way. I have absolutely no doubt that the "pause" was always intended to become a permanent "ban" on LNG export permits. Until the judge stepped in. I believe the earlier Supreme Court decision probably helped.

 

[BC38]

But it indeed is another example of regulatory agency overreach that should never have been allowed to happen. In this case, the pause was originated in the White House and passed to DOE to implement primarily to keep the greenies happy and voting the right way. I have absolutely no doubt that the "pause" was always intended to become a permanent "ban" on LNG export permits. Until the judge stepped in. I believe the earlier Supreme Court decision probably helped.

Yet another case of the "administrative state's" over-reach being struck down. That's a very good thing - or maybe even a GREAT thing - IMO.

 

[ladder13]

Looks like a lot of rethinking considering recent SCOTUS decisions.