The end of government as we know it? What happens if Chevron deference is overturned

[@masskhysteria3311]

No. No ,No bureaucrats don't get to create laws!! They are overstepping their authority!!!

[@charliewaters5289]

Thank you for being a sane voice in a sea of morons.

[@ebonychenevert-miller3322]

They've been doing it all along

[@masskhysteria3311]

@@ebonychenevert-miller3322 Not the only one of the alphabet soup bureaucracies.. FBI, FDA, DEA, ATF, EPA, TSA, DHS, FAA, NTSB, They all work outside the laws that were passed by Congress!!

[@Likeaworm]

Congress will actually have to do their job!!!’ The horror of this is just unacceptable!!

[@fixieroy]

@@Likeaworm no. congress will continue to not do their job and then the rest of us will get left dealing with corrupt corporations making bank by ripping off Americans. Theres a reason why corporations want this so bad.

[@scourge6563]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." ~James Madison, Federalist No. 51 Men, and corporate agents in particular, are as rapacious and malevolent as they have ever been.

[@AlbertGuilmont]

Because someone had this brilliant idea to gather all those "rapacious and malevolent" people in America, so the rest of the planet won't suffer.

[@RalphieMaysGhost]

Where are you going to find these angels to organize society? -Milton Friedman

[@johnward43]

“I need to pay the Big Guy 10%.” - Hunter Biden

[@haint7709]

Profits to shareholders is the FIRST consideration with these corporations. Short term profits are more important then continued profits at a lower rate. Plenty have declared bankruptcy and have used laws to avoid any costs for clean up. Fracking is a current example. The Bush administration and VP Cheney ensured that corps weren't"burdened" with oversight. Vote Blue.

[@andy99ish]

"Men, and corporate agents in particular, are as rapacious and malevolent as they have ever been" The difference being that one corporate agent has much, much more influence than one citizen.

[@rolandivankovic1438]

The ability for billionaires to buy laws from corrupt judges is sad time to take the money out of politics. No more lobbyists

[@Ominousheat]

What they are doing is the epitome of corporate fascism. And for this law to be scrapped would be a middle finger to the layperson.

[@TheChopf26]

This is abiding by the constitution, not billionaires buying laws. Your baseless accusation shows that you have no respect for the constitution and want an authoritarian big government.

[@philhiller-mn1gw]

Including Israel and Ukraine.

[@RalphieMaysGhost]

Or corrupt New York DAs that try to eliminate Trump by bringing lawsuits on him before the election. You dont have any outrage over that because the ends justify the means. My point is that Democrats and the media acting as if they are as clean as undriven snow is pretty laughable.

[@nicholausbuthmann1421]

Ukraine I'm fine with & so should you ! Just NOT Israel. Netanyahu & Putin are the same kind of people,, GIVE ZELINSKI THE CREDIT HE DESERVES ! !​@@philhiller-mn1gw

[@AlexKeefe]

The same government agencies that have allowed food companies to put additives in our food that are otherwise outlawed in other countries? Are those the “experts” you referring to?

[@combatepistemologist]

This is the result of political meddling in Agency decisions.

[@mooseheadjack1]

high prices and wanton pollution from corporations is caused by LACK of regulation. @@combatepistemologist

[@cadmean-reader]

Which is affected by interest groups lobbying the politics, so we're back to the same problem here

[@JLT0087]

Do you imagine that things will improve if it is left to congress or the Supreme Court to determine what additives those agencies are allowed to regulate?

[@mooseheadjack1]

well, given that there is at least SOME in both of those bodies that understand and listen to science, yes.@@JLT0087

[@BobSmith-lb9nc]

Reasonable regulations are not the issue. Velshi foolishly imagines that the "experts" can be trusted to make good regulations, even though their bosses are political appointees. Thus, those so-called experts are directly subject to political influence. Their regulations whipsaw from one extreme to another based on the administration in power. Velshi ignores such actual dangers. We know they happen, and we need to prevent them. K Street and govt employees are invested in moving back and forth from govt to private corporations. Congress doesn't do its job. That's the problem.

[@veronicareitherreese6671]

Here's a thought. How about we have agencies run by subject matter experts instead of political appointees or judges. Political appointees do whatever their administration wants. As for judges, let's look at their lack of medical knowledge while judges/justices make medical decisions instead of doctors (you know the folks who actually went to medical school).

[@brentkuehne435]

I have never known one "expert " who wasn't a dumb as dirt narcissist!

[@lfischer8380]

What the supreme court threw out was the ability of the deep administrative state to control innovation, small business and entrepreneurialism.

[@darklelouchg8505]

​@@veronicareitherreese6671Here's a thought. Congress writes laws, SCOTUS interprets laws and the President enforces laws? Almost like how Chevron is stating . . Oh wait.

[@JamesPfeiffer-z2j]

It's like we have turned time back and now we are litigating the same things as 40 or 50 years ago.

[@Trump2PrisonOn34Counts]

The right wing desperately wants to return the nation to the 1940's and 1950's. I remember when my aunt could finally open a bank account in her name without a male co-signer.

[@JamesPfeiffer-z2j]

@@Trump2PrisonOn34Counts You are so correct. For a long time the GOP has said they want to take America back. Yes, perhaps to president Hover, or the middle ages.

[@suehowie152]

The right want a new ' interpretation '

[@MayMarmaid]

We are! Just because conservatives now have the votes. It’s all political and it’s BS.

[@windorsolarplease4314]

@@Trump2PrisonOn34Counts I am over the age of 70 and you are correct. I do remember a time where I grew up you could burn tires and such polluting the air, a woman couldn't buy a car/home on her own. She could not even get a credit card on her own. Our banks in town would allow a savings account for anyone, but not a checking account for a woman. Things were different and it wasn't that long ago. If a woman worked, she was only allowed certain positions, and pay was lower than a mans, even if she did more work. In the work place men did not hesitate to make inappropriate advances without repercussions, it would be the woman's fault. Times were different. Even what was expected to wear was different, it was ok to wear slacks at home, but if you went to the store you should wear a day dress, and it was always a must to wear a girdle. Going to Church you had to wear a hat and gloves, no matter the temps. It's amazing how our world has changed, but if there are no regulations or consequences then it's going to be free for all and Corporations will go wild.

[@kathypariso6102]

Ask the people in OH about unregulated rail cars and toxic spills! Thousands of home owners have now lost all of their land value, and are living in what is essentially a toxic waste dump. If this law changes (so corporations can pocket more profit), this country will be a very dangerous place to live.

[@muchoed5119]

Transportation is regulated

[@RalphieMaysGhost]

Regulations are just taxes. Lets get that straight.

[@michaeldunson2531]

Who cares they voted for Trump who rolled back regulations that would have stopped this!

[@thedrunksaiyan2227]

​@@RalphieMaysGhostregulations prevent monopolies, price gouging, corporations putting out unsafe products. Maybe you would prefer more lead in your water, or unsafe preservatives in your food, or no safety regulations on your cars? You don't have a clue

[@thedrunksaiyan2227]

​@@muchoed5119not as well as it was thanks to Trump

[@dragonf1092]

Corporations have too much power

[@muchoed5119]

Unelected beurocrats have too much power.

[@Liv-fr-o-dy-tryg]

Until society decides to spend their money elsewhere.

[@willi-fg2dh]

welcome to the wonderful world of Citizens United! [ note: the only way we might get out from under is to either buy some SC(R)OTUS justices or keep electing Democratic administrations until we have a more realistic SCOTUS ]

[@syrenstar9037]

​​@@Liv-fr-o-dy-trygSome corporations are unavoidable. I would love to have a different phone company as Tds is horrible, however it's the only local landline phone company available in my rural town. I have to work with them, or not have a landline because of their monopoly. And cell phone service is spotty so for safety reasons, I work with tds.

[@MxMe-su1ch]

​@@syrenstar9037All the more reason to nationalize telecommunications.

[@kristheobserver]

Who regulates the regulators? Regulation is good but unelected regulators with broad powers seems very questionable to me.

[@gadgetollie]

If a corporation spends X amount of dollars to comply with regulations and the consumer price of their product is Y, does anyone actually believe that if the regulations are removed, reducing the cost of X, that corporations will reduce the price of Y? It will just make things less safe while increasing the profits for the corporation.

[@veronicareitherreese6671]

No

[@JC-tq8gm]

First of all, the Obama admin over regulated the industry so badly manufacturing couldn't afford to do business here anymore. That's why nearly everything you buy is made over seas. Trump was doing away with that, but then Brandon undid that. Secondly, if a company can make Y in Asia for pennies on the dollar compared to making it here, they are going to do it. The Asian company will pollute 10 times more than the American company would ever pollute, even under the least amount of EPA regulations. Our regulations will never be removed, just brought to a reasonable level so companies can do business. The way Obama had them set, they just make no sense and cost too much to comply with.

[@jakek09]

Yes, thats how the free market works. You see certain companies will cut prices to sell at a lower price than their competition so they sell more products, the competition then will cut prices to compete and they will go back and forth until the correct price of the good or service is determined by the customer willingness to purchase the good and the companies ability to profit. God sycophants are so stupid. But you know if socialists understood economics they wouldnt be socialists.

[@charliewaters5289]

It's not about price. It's about unelected bureaucrats being able to come in and take your property because of laws they made.

[@veronicareitherreese6671]

@charliewaters5289 It is about price. The unelected bureaucrat isn't who is taking your property. It is politicians, judges/justices, and the lobbyists for the rich/corporations that take your money/property. It is by new laws that they create/write or the creative interpretation of the law (see corporations are people BS) that takes your property/money.

[@2024Trump_fan]

We need protection from the government!

[@jper1245]

Man...this country is really turning into a dystopian society...

[@100pyatt]

BidenObamics 2024🎉

[@ronreagan-x5w]

... thanks to Joe Biden.

[@fieldthrasher]

​@@OlderG0dsWhy are you even commenting on a subject that requires thought?

[@ANONYMOUS_PEASANT]

​@fieldthrasher it's called the 1st amendment, we do live in the United States of America..I think, maybe I made a wrong turn🤔

[@EddieTHead2266]

Dude go read project 2025 and come back and explain your Comment about how you think dystopia is even remotely happening . Hyperbole and dram dude. The gertiage foundation is what you should fear.

[@unrefined5156]

I’m in final year of law school and I can say that was actually a really good explanation of the administrative state. Whether they have too much power is another argument. Keep in mind that there is no real representation at all in these agencies, they are free to enact what basically amount to laws without the people ever voting on it. That is the issue, ignore the rhetoric ab corporations.

[@leonardarchuleta8896]

The problem is regulations are made by people that are not elected or accountable. Regulations are usually made by whoever is in political power.

[@joshmerchant8737]

they are appointed and accountable to the elected people. in this specific regard they are functionally similar to the supreme court. if the people who make the regulations do something you dont like, complain to your relevant congressperson. in this regard they are more accountable than the supreme court.

[@tom-oneil]

​@@joshmerchant8737 😂😂😂 what world are you living in

[@mindimartian9821]

This administration has abused it's power through the agencies so much that stripping Chevron has to happen. If Congress has not passed a bill the unelected agency under the direction of the President should not be able to enforce a "rule" that they "made up". The agencies are in executive overreach. The executive branch can only ENFORCE the LAWS that Congress PASSES. The agencies are not staffed by experts, they are staffed by people beholden to the President and his/her AGENDA.

[@neotheboxer]

The regulations are made by professionals in the field which must be evaluated and passed. They ate intended to protect the nation at large. This position you hold completely ignore that the people are indeed appijt3d but the laws are decided by elected persons.

[@5rings16]

No! That's why chev def must be overturned. Reg agencies are overstepping without accountability.

[@irisheyes7311]

My son and grandchildren will be working in unsafe conditions while the industry or owners will traipse in the south of France with the extra money they pocketed on cutting safety! I can not take anymore with this Supreme Court.

[@janetmelton6890]

I’n 67 and I am right there with you!

[@NeilHoward-kp2gc]

⁠@@pandabearmycat5206The last line of your post should read “The only thing that matters is Trump.” He is our republicans deity. The only way to salvation is through him. 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺MAGA🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺

[@NeilHoward-kp2gc]

@@pandabearmycat5206 Moments ago I rolled over and whispered in my sibling Gloria Jean’s ear what you posted and she was appalled. Gloria Jean is smart, beautiful, voluptuous and knows 💯 who her soon to be re-elected republicans savior is. Matter of fact, when the sun comes up we plan on showing the hundreds of Trump supporters, here at the mobile home park where we live, your comments. You better get right before it’s too late because Trump forbid you don’t.🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺MAGA🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺

[@laiifersner8108]

@@NeilHoward-kp2gc🤔I had to read it twice …thanks for laugh.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@lostbutfreesoul]

@@pandabearmycat5206 You and the death cult you belong to are strange....

[@LordZontar]

This is why America can't have nice things.

[@bondjovi4595]

But currently living better than you.

[@LordZontar]

@@bondjovi4595 Only in the Trumpslave World of the Imagination. Not in the real world, however.

[@combatepistemologist]

@@bondjovi4595 Have you ever set foot outside your own county?

[@FunkyLittlePoptart]

@@bondjovi4595 HAHAHAHAHA!!! Your country is a third world crap pile.

[@sparkypvp2167]

​@bondjovi4595, um, have you ever set foot in Europe?

[@twolaneasphalt4459]

Government agencies are run by experts! Since when?

[@jadapinkett1656]

The same "experts" that tried pushing experimental clot shots on the people.

[@BigSlimyBlob]

They're usually not that competent, no. But courts have far less expertise, so... "guy who's not that good at his job" tends to be a better choice than "guy in a black dress who knows nothing about the subject and just does what the people paying him bribes tell him to do".

[@rickwrites2612]

​​@@BigSlimyBloband infinitely better than "guy who makes money doing the opposite of his job at everyone's expense" ie GOP admin "experts" the EPA is anti environment, the education lady is anti-education, etc

[@BigSlimyBlob]

@@rickwrites2612 This is true. The previous president made the worst possible picks, putting a polluter in charge of protecting people from pollution and a private school billionaire in charge of public education, and named corrupt judges to the Supreme Court. If we're being realistic, the USA has already fallen to corruption. Still, there is no reason to actively hasten the country's descent into a dystopia. One side is still far, far worse than the other.

[@rb032682]

@twolaneassfault - Please remove your head from QAnus!

[@MYMARSHMELLOWLIFE]

Anything that shrinks this over bloated government is a step in the right direction

[@laurietx7714]

Yeah, didn’t reduction in railroad regulations result in a couple of toxic accidents? Just asking

[@cybergothstudios94]

Way more than a couple unfortunately. It's fully out of hand at this point.

[@alfredgeorge317]

That was back in 2017. That was trump.

[@The_Conspiracy_Analyst]

no

[@charliewaters5289]

NOPE. Try researching. You were spoon fed a lie and you still believe it.

[@mattb8754]

Can your prove that?

[@michaelburk9171]

Hey the guys that own the new lead smelter down the street told us lead smelters are totally safe.

[@jansoules7912]

Yep, I drink lead everyday!

[@AlwaysAwesome001]

Live in China? 🤔

[@MrBreeze66]

But the government bureaucrats decided to shakedown the industry and congress who make laws do nothing but run for office.

[@AlwaysAwesome001]

@@jacobbaran Uh huh. 🙄 Ok goober. 🤣

[@combatepistemologist]

@@jacobbaran Only if the GOP has its way.

[@ronhall3686]

How many large foreign owned American companies will benefit from deregulation? China and Brazil control most of our meat industry. Saudi Arabia controls a large portion of our oil refinery industry. China owns many of our corporations. Reversal of Chevron Deference gives partial control of our economy to foreign players?

[@TheChopf26]

Over regulation is what pushed those industries into foreign hands. Americans are the ones who benefit from deregulation.

[@TheChopf26]

You just want a big authoritarian government to let the foreign players control our economy.

[@invalidaccount2315]

that was democrats that allowed forien companies on american soil.

[@alfredgeorge317]

​@@invalidaccount2315 No...that was not Democrats...try again...

[@blueberry-ri7eb]

​@@invalidaccount2315that is not true. Foreign companies have been welcomed by both parties. Mitch McConnell accepted a Russian Ukrainian company into his state as many other Republicans have.

[@CharlesCurran-m9p]

Oh that would be so sad if unaccountable government bureaucrats couldn’t ruin people’s lives.

[@gingerredshoes]

Like the lifetime-appointed scotus justices that the people had no say in electing? I agree. They've eiined enough of our rights recently.

[@CharlesCurran-m9p]

@@gingerredshoes If you have a problem with that, take it up with the founders of the country. Which unelected government job do you hold?

[@danielmiller9012]

@@gingerredshoes Except the judiciary naturally checks itself and balances out. Whereas executive agencies are completely unchecked in their interpretation and application of regulations. Also, judiciary has lifetime seats so they dont need to worry about re election.

[@ecpracticesquad4674]

We need regulations. Companies WILL cut corners to cut costs and maximize profits. They do not care about our health or the environment. If companies did the right thing, we wouldn’t have needed regulations in the first place.

[@mooseheadjack1]

100%. Lack of regulations is why prices are currently so high. Corporate greed.

[@Nicole-ck9ss]

Yes and no, the regulations should come from individuals that do not directly benefit from said regulations

[@GaryMiller-z6t]

Then you can figure out a way to have elected people make the regulations. We can't have this system we have now. If you think the regulations we have now weren't already created by the corporations, then you are extremely ignorant.

[@scoobydoo7737]

If anything the cdc should prove the "experts" serve their pockets over the facts

[@jpvoodoo5522]

Congress is the lawmaking body. Agencies are part of the executive branch. The executive branch should not be making laws. It has been a side-step around due process as there is no mechanism in place for challenging it. If the congress wants to regulate, they should seek out the advice of experts for input into the laws. Agencies are for enforcement, not lawmaking. That is our separation of powers. That is what is being violated here. In the past, Congress has evaded their responsibility and let the executive branch arbitrarily make the laws without a vote. This needs to stop.

[@turdferguson3475]

Well said.

[@Tabacish]

Lol, congress is a corporate bought mess, just look at the house, and if you expect them to decide details in regulations nothing will happen and corporations will destroy everything. But hey, profits right?

[@kurt53641]

This is a great thing! Forces congress to actually create laws instead of pointing the finger at th executive branch so they can keep their payroll.

[@blueberry-ri7eb]

The Supreme Court And Congress are not experts on nuclear power, chemical poisons, bacterial contamination, and ppm of deadly chemicals in air and water. It would take them years to decide and Americans will die.

[@rickwrites2612]

Congress and senate (as well as electoral college) disproportionately represent areas with low population and education, ie right wing. They like this, and if their constituents don't they wont vote them out because they just rile them up about immigrants and gays.

[@np4057]

Problem is, modern day congressmen know very little about that which they write law. Proven time and time again. However, the fact that these unelected beauricrats in these agencies can essentially write law with no one checking them is a crime to the American people no matter how you lean politically. It allows whichever political party is in control to push their agenda behind the scenes without having to pass any actual laws.

[@answersfromscriptureonline]

These agencies are run by ideologues-not experts. The director of the ATF doesn’t know a machine gun from a shoelace and he is trying to violate our 2nd amendment rights.

[@jlangenberg]

Power to the people and not the bureaucrats

[@robertvansteinshwaga]

Agencies should NOT have authority to create rules period

[@Supreme36074]

So just allow dumping in lakes, or situations like the rail cars in Ohio etc?

[@robertvansteinshwaga]

Who said that???? @@Supreme36074

[@stevenrochelle2238]

chevron deference existed during all the past environmental "atrocities" of the last 40 years. If your agencies were so good to regulate those companies; why did it happen still?

[@FreshyMontana-ls7kc]

Right the B.O.P. makes there on Rules and they shouldnt

[@Nicole-ck9ss]

Limit Government involvement in the lives of individuals. It’s WAY past time!

[@100pyatt]

💯💯💯💯

[@kevinangus4848]

So, we have to pay for healthcare, vehicle and building inspection, licencing, permits. But industries don't like paying. End of sentence.

[@Juan-yq3fb]

Bring this to so called Morgan and Morgan. Lol

[@Smiley-fv8zi]

Exactly. Erh!!

[@jakek09]

The secret is we shouldnt have to pay for those.

[@CalmBeforeTheStorm76]

The possibility of law-making authority being given back to Congress? One can only hope...

[@onecalledchuck1664]

No, if regulatory boards empowered by congress no longer have power, to regulate everything will be litigated through the courts. 17K decisions made by regulation are now up for grabs in the courts where unelected judges decide whether you get to breathe clean air or not.

[@clintonm2357]

I think these “experts” should come up with a plan, then pitch it to Congress. Then their ideas will be law and not “regulatory guidelines.” Then we will have each legislator’s name and opinion on each one. Might help people vote in an informed way.

[@ziroth12]

Congress, famously able to do things

[@forgipper]

When executive agencies overstep, then deference needs to curtailed. Only Congress has the power to pass laws. If there is no statute, then there should be no regulation.

[@savageinstitute9569]

Wise words.

[@robertalker652]

The public has to foot all sorts of financial impositions placed upon them by government... why not corporations?

[@marcy3098]

Exactly

[@geoffsmith82]

Regulations affect individuals as well!

[@robertalker652]

@@geoffsmith82 That's what I meant by what I posted.

[@geoffsmith82]

@@robertalker652 Well... I meant that this would also affect the impositions that the government can place on individuals. Often all the regulations make it impossible for individuals and small businesses to compete with larger businesses because large businesses can absorb the costs and employ individuals to deal with complying with the regulations. Individuals and small businesses can't do this and it ends up making things more complicated for them to do what they want to do.

[@robertalker652]

@@geoffsmith82 Ah, I see your point now and agree. The playing field is tailored for big business, and as for the rest, well, you know.

[@bwmcelya]

I don’t expect proper law interpretation from scotus anymore. Keep it up and they will find themselves banished to the dark corners of jurisprudential insignificance, where no one will abide their decisions.

[@marshcreek4355]

Yep. A Constitutional crisis created through their corruption, arrogance, and narcissism. The only question is who'll have the guts and courage to say "no mas" and do what they need to do. It won't be Biden as he's a corrupted institutionalist who'll protect the institution over the needs of the people. He's in too deep. Can you say Merrick Garland? But somewhere a Dem is being born or ready to rise in power who will challenge the misery and destruction these 6 radicalized unelected judges are about to cause. One can only hope.

[@DYLAN102001]

Your not getting your perfered decisions anymore so you simply say they're corrupted.

[@bwmcelya]

@@DYLAN102001 I would love nothing more than for you to be right about that. The bribery part is disturbing.

[@DYLAN102001]

@@bwmcelya You mean like when Biden got all that money from Chinise officials?

[@rl192]

@@bwmcelya Yeah, nothing rising to the level of bribery has even been alleged against anyone on the Supreme Court. So try again.

[@louisgunn7314]

These are the same agencies that burned the forest. Not a little at a time but thousands of acres all once.

[@e.1220]

Who regulates the agencies and how?

[@windorsolarplease4314]

I think we need regulations, these agencies, but we also need to make sure there is not corruption. If we don't have these regulations/agencies, corporations would go crazy, we need oversite by professionals.

[@1965Grit]

But what happens when those same Government regulators become corrupt? The issue at hand in this case is, environmentalists have taken over this department and are desperately trying to eliminate the fishing industry, the same way they eliminated the timber industry in the northwest, and many small towns in the northwest have never recovered, even after 30 years, living in the northwest, we see the damage caused by decisions made in DC, there needs to be a balance, but DC doesn't see balance, they see environmentalists money for their campaigns!!

[@geoffsmith82]

Well the counter to that is that most regulating agencies are captured by the business sectors they are in charge of regulating... as well as regulators freely moving between business and the regulating organisations.

[@huha47]

If Chevron deference is booted, who can trust any company? It has always been caveat emptor in the US, whereas in Europe companies must prove their products are safe for consumption or use before making them available for sale. Numerous American products are banned in Europe as a result. I prefer government intervention than becoming a corporate victim.

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

Not necessarily. Most of US law is quite clear. It's only when the law is ambiguous that a problem will arise. If the court finds that Congress did not give the agency the power to do what it's trying to do, then the agency can go back to Congress and ask them to write their desired regulatory power into statute. This hapepened in the aftermath of the FAA unilaterly implementing a drone registration requirement without the vesting of such authority in the agency by Congress. The case is Taylor v Huerta. Congress later changed the statute and gave the FAA the power to require drone users to register themselves with the FAA and take a safety course before flying.

[@susannaschnell4147]

Chemicals of poison in food equal future benefits for health care and pharmaceutical. Money versus care for humanity. This is how the story goes.

[@100pyatt]

You clearly don't understand how Chevron Deference works

[@Kheti1234]

Anyone who tells us ‘Government agencies are ran by experts.” has no clue what he is talking about!

[@girlanonymous]

Thanks to Trump rolling back railroad regulations, there have been serious deadly railray accidents since. You Trump supporters are dumbest of the dumb if you think their shouldn’t be regulations. We will all be walking around with hazmat suits on if GOP get their way by deregulating everything 🙄

[@markshaw431]

Our land your land is the United States United States made up of citizens not corporations corporations have no right to decide what our environment should be for that how healthy we should live our lives this should be protected by our government and should not be upended by private interest

[@Wolfcamp555]

My land is my land and no one has authority of it but me.

[@08techgrad]

This about corporations relinquishing public accountability and liability. While expanding their profit margin. Public health and safety be damned.

[@Raelven]

That's been the plan, all along.

[@richardjosephus6802]

No, it's not, it's about unelected zealots deciding what they want the unwashed mass are allowed to do. Like the EPA deciding that CO2 is bad and must be regulated.

[@5rings16]

Corporations are accountable.

[@karensagal8230]

@@5rings16 How?

[@08techgrad]

@@5rings16 Just barely, even after being sued for damages. The settlements are usually a pittance compared to the amount they make during any given year.

[@1965Grit]

To answer her question, Congress "should " be the ones to make these decisions, not the EPA, Congress is our Representatives, they represent the people, they are supposed to vote they way their constitutes want them to vote, we are after all a Constitutional Republic, which is a representative form of Government, we are not an authoritarian style Government where the department heads make laws, the Congress makes laws, the Executive enforces the law and the Supreme Court decides if those laws are Constitutional!!

[@rickwrites2612]

Yea and they delegated it to federal agencies what are you confused about.

[@websitemartian]

thank you for explaining that too these 🐑

[@1965Grit]

@rickwrites2612 I don't care who delegated anything to these organizations, the Constitution does not state that laws can be made by organizations delegated by Congress, it states that Congress has the sole power to make laws...period..

[@whalesong8040]

Thank you both so.much for shedding light on this incredibly critical issue! Most people probably have no clue about these matters and just how deep and broad the implications could be! Very scary, given the players of the day.

[@GaryMiller-z6t]

yes, freedom is scary, get used to it.

[@jonathonmerrell9554]

These idiots in the video are presenting a very biased view of chevron deference. Chevron deference is one of the biggest problems in our bloated democratic led government

[@mindimartian9821]

WE THE PEOPLE give the government power. It is not the governments role to RULE THE PEOPLE. Stop giving your rights away.

[@burntorangehorn]

​@@GaryMiller-z6tThis is about regulation. Why should judges with no expertise outside of the law be in charge or regulating food safety, environmental standards, pharmaceutical approvals, aircraft safety policies and enforcement, etc.?

[@juanitapuerta1805]

These agencies do lie and they should be investigated too.

[@billalumni7760]

Chevron Deference gives the power to an unelected agency to create law, judge whether the law was broken and set fines and jail time. Those powers were separated into three branches by the US Constitution to constrain unfettered abuse of power with checks and balances.

[@TGWazoo1]

The experts were to advise Congress so Congress could pass laws, not the experts.

[@donald2665]

Overturning "Chevron Deference" will take away Over Lord Ship from the so called Regulatory Agencies and place them in line with up holding Freedom - and Property Rights, especially those Freedoms and Rights under the Bill of Rights. Ending "Chevron Deference" would be so wonderful to the American People and would force the Congress to propose or draft laws and vote on them and be accountable to "We The People" thru our vote.

[@100pyatt]

Correct and Amen !! 🎉🎉

[@jezkerjamez7110]

If I had the money i would move my family and I to one of the Nordic countries because if these crazy libertarians get control then this place will become one of the sh%tholes Trump talked about.

[@AlwaysAwesome001]

San Francisco 🤢

[@harmenvanderheide9219]

It was republican Trump that rolled back safety protocols on trains and train tracks resulting in that major chemical spill 2 years? Ago

[@ryanrawlings8670]

Stop all of the crazy regulations

[@Rockysboxing]

Not all bureaucracies are led by experts. Some of these people are complete idiots in their fields, but are really good at doing what their masters tell them. This is the big problem: these agencies flip flopping on what is legal and what isn't, strictly depending on who sits in the White House.

[@blueberry-ri7eb]

Yes I noticed when Republicans were in more dangerous chemicals and contaminates were allowed higher like asbestos and other chemicals. The amounts would be adjusted UP.

[@Supreme36074]

So the answer is to do away with them completely? I think there’s a better answer than that .

[@givemeabreakdoc]

@@blueberry-ri7eb🐎💩. You noticed what the dnc lied to you about. Nothing more.

[@filrabat1965]

Then the problem is hiring standards and scrutiny, not bureaucracies themselves. What else is going to carry out the instructions of the President, Congress, etc? This idea of "no government in my my life" is just a libertarian prepper fantasy.

[@givemeabreakdoc]

@@filrabat1965 and isn’t that proof of bureaucracy failure? Look at this child sniffer and it’s “hiring.” They’re more concerned with “equity” and DEI 🐎💩, than they are qualifications.

[@albwilso9]

WE the People have to wake up NOW!!!!

[@paulharter4656]

Less government in our lives the better our lives will be.

[@100pyatt]

💯🎉💯🎉💯

[@stevenwagner9912]

Over 90% of government is not needed. Or allowed by the Constitution.

[@BobDingus-bh3pd]

He lost me at “Federal agencies are run by experts.”

[@rickwrites2612]

Less gov in our personal lives, more gov in corporations.

[@keithwood6459]

Strange how these newscasters, and liberals generally, have such inherent trust in government, when throughout all human history, government has rightly been been distrusted.

[@Dingdong3696oyvey]

I’m old enough to remember when these justices all agreed on the sanctity of Stare Decisis.

[@michaelmurphy6195]

Stare Decisis can not circumvent the constitution. Did you see anything in the 14th amendment that approves abortion? Neither did the Supreme Court.

[@michaelmurphy6195]

Agreeing with precedent and agreeing constitution are two separate things

[@andy99ish]

You never understood that a SCOTUS interpretation is not meant to be fixed forever. If this were the case, we still would hold that "blacks are separate but equal". See, Stare Decisis is a common law doctrine. The interpretation of the Constitution is not bound by common law principles.

[@michaelmurphy6195]

@@andy99ish The SCOTUS interpretation is not fixed, you're right. What is fixed is the language of the constitution. Did you see anything in the 14th amendment that would allow you to accuse a slave of insurrection, and string them up in the courtyard without due process?

[@michaelmurphy6195]

@@andy99ish In fact do you see anything in the 14th concerned about slaves ability to have an abortion. I didn't think so!

[@jacobew2000]

It will return government back to the "limited form of government" that the Founding fathers wanted. Read James Madison's 1792 Cod Fishery bill. He said that it was "... not the roll of government to be benevolent toward people, from the American treasury and would violate the limited form of government that we created" (paraphrasing). In this Cod Fishery bill, they were trying to pass a bill to "help" immigrants from Haiti.

[@100pyatt]

💯♥️🇺🇸

[@joshmerchant8737]

There where two sects of the founding fathers, the federalists and anti-federalists, one wanted the limited government you speak, but the other wanted a stronger more capable government. Your premise denies/ignores the very existence of about half of the founding fathers. The more important thing to know about this, is that they COMPROMISED, the constitution gave a fair bit of power to congress, and the bill of rights put firm limits on that power. The power in regulation wouldn't actually change anyways; it would still be the same amount of congressional power. New regulations would still apply with the same authority, existing ones would likely be set more firmly. This potential overturn would just require congresspersons spend more TIME on regulations, being more specific, giving more direct orders, etc etc. The bureaucracy would get slower and more inefficient than it is already. If you want that, that's fine, it would reduce regulation enforcement a bit. But it wouldn't change the power or form of congress, or return it to some previous form.

[@jacobew2000]

@@joshmerchant8737 The Federalists accepted the Anti-federalists Bill of Rights, because they knew that that was the only way that the states would ratify the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court in the 1890s agreed with what I said. They struck down various taxes then. That is why the Liberals rammed through the 16th Amendment after SCOTUS said no to their welfare state in the 1890s.

[@theoutdoorslifetv3200]

Congress has, over time, given far too much power to regulatory agencies, I.e. the executive branch. The President. We got along just fine before Chevron and we will get along better without it.

[@evracer]

If those ideas are that good ...there should be no problem getting Congress to pass them. Would you be OK if the ATF decided fully automatic guns were legal?

[@carldouglasmiles5594]

Agencies weren’t elected to make laws which is what they’re doing. Congress can’t simply delegate all its law making authority to unelected bureaucrats and so called “experts” .

[@100pyatt]

💯🎉💯🎉

[@tomarmstrong1281]

In the end it comes down to values. Deregulation of parts of the FAA allowed Boeing to cut corners, aircraft crashed, people were killed and Airbus is now King of the heap.

[@NoName-tq9fi]

FAA deregulation was passed by congress. This has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

[@tomarmstrong1281]

@@NoName-tq9fi Deregulation has everything to do with this case.

[@jakek09]

Shilling for the government hard! Ditching chevron would be one of the best things for our country.

[@patsyleeoswald9912]

Regulatory agencies should not be able to create laws.

[@docholiday6808]

In all reality it keeps the government out of our personal lives I'm all for this

[@acoreysanders79]

As if the regulatory agencies such as the FBI, IRS, and ATF have always operated with the upmost integrity, right? Jeez, chevron deference should have never existed.

[@user-eh8yz6ko3t]

She said “imagine someone like Majorie Taylor Greene trying to decide how to regulate particulate matter” 😂😂😂

[@braeandrews1455]

Imagine Biden! LOL! Wait! NVM!...

[@websitemartian]

it was a cute script they had her read ... cable news is soo predictable 🤮

[@130VonKleist]

I can't think of a politician worthy of regulating parking.

[@Gman7774eye]

Imagine Nancy Pelosi??? Never mind!!!

[@privateer9181]

Yeah a person elected to pass laws…..NOT a epa non elected dictator

[@WashingtonWeedReviews]

I’m tired of the unelected bureaucrats making the laws

[@omegabat39]

Why?

[@roginutah]

@@omegabat39 Because the average Joe doesn't have any input. And simply because they stayed in their position and advanced, doesn't make them an expert. And they answer to nobody. Basically they have no restraint.

[@spartancrown]

@@omegabat39because that’s not how the system is supposed to work. Why would you want unelected bureaucrats making laws?

[@omegabat39]

@spartancrown it is. Called checks and balances. I know what you are doing and it's sad lolz.

[@WashingtonWeedReviews]

@@omegabat39 typical Democrat response when you have no clue

[@michaelmurphy6195]

Maybe congress can quit writing ambiguous legislation. The era of "We have to pass it to know what is in it" is over. Just ask Pelosi.

[@epicemmalee2000]

Yes! Congress is designed to be gridlocked and inefficient to make onerous and unpopular laws difficult to enact. Handing legislative and judicial power to the executive branch just runs roughshod over checks and balances.

[@HUeducator2011]

0:58 this isn’t true. Agencies are lead by appointees, however the experts non political appointees everyday Americans (experts) are the ones who have regulatory authority. Civil servants are everyday taxpayers who are vetted via the FBI, who have the education and experience to help ensure that the American people are taken care of.

[@skipdegraff6547]

Smaller government is the goal of a free people

[@FC-qe1wl]

Any thing that weakins the Federal powers over us is a good thing

[@AlwaysAwesome001]

🇺🇲👍

[@BigSlimyBlob]

Yeah. Those pesky federal agencies. Always making sure that corporations aren't poisoning our food and water, or making us work in unsafe conditions. Let's give corporations free reign to do whatever they want! What could go wrong?

[@burkardhanis]

good riddance to unelected agencies writing rules/regs that have the real world impact of laws.

[@l3igl2eaper]

Who should we trust to keep our rivers clean? The EPA or the corporations that dump waste into the rivers? Supreme Court: We should trust the corporations to do the right thing. What a joke.

[@tyronevonchadley]

Imagine trusting that the EPA is not owned by the corporations

[@alfredgeorge317]

There are tens of thousands of barrels of unknown chemicals deposited along the California coast line. (Some have only been recently discovered.) It's why California now has the most stringent environmental laws in the country.

[@ryanwilson5936]

It’s as if you don’t know how any of this works….

[@superrube1969]

How about those who we elect to congress who are supposed to actually legislate?

[@Low_ET]

"Federal agencies are run by experts" . . . 😂😂😂😂😂😂.

[@jonathonmerrell9554]

Remember when the director of the ATF was questioned by congress? Well, if you are not an expert in alcohol and you are not an expert in tobacco, nor an expert in firearms, then are you an expert in explosives?… dude knows nothing about anything yet he’s the director of the ATF!

[@chromegaman]

This would also have the effect of clogging federal courts with petty corporate regulation challenges in all districts, so much so that issues of civil rights, correcting harms done by large corporations, and matters of social legal importance would be delayed or outright denied due to the court calendar, not to mention the number of challenges that would seek SCOTUS attention and therefore SCOTUS time, which would then result in more shadow docket decisions.

[@100pyatt]

Correcting GOVERNMENT harm caused to the people and business✅

[@mindimartian9821]

Then pass a clear and unambiguous LAW like the forefathers intended.

[@jadapinkett1656]

Good. This is absolutely fantastic. The destruction of government power warns my heart.

[@MegaSuperfatguy]

As much as I'm anti-government, there is no denying the government is the only thing holding the leash of the rabid monsters that are U.S. corporations. If that leash breaks, we the people are who will be the victims of those monsters every whim.

[@Obalexgarcia]

This is what the new president for Argentina is getting rid of.

[@Supreme36074]

Yeah we saw how it was the regulations that was holding the country back … said no one ever 😂

[@MrFahqup]

What regulations? Every brand of baby food has 60x the minimum allowed heavy metals, and the FDA has done nothing..? What happens when these federal agencies refuse to do their jobs anyways? Who regulates that?

[@blakethegreatone2058]

The fda does everything according to money. It's why stevia isn't approved.

[@whatthecripesable]

actually- the free and impartial media and thereby, the public. But all the media is owned by rich guys, now, so...

[@briant7265]

End of government? Not at all. The Constitution places the power and responsibility for making laws Darrell in the legislative branch. That's Congress, for you reporters. The unelected bureaucrats in those federal agencies are part of the executive. They don't get to just make up new laws. And just because we've done it that way for a few decades doesn't make it right. (See also, Dred Scott and "separate but equal".)

[@BobDingus-bh3pd]

You lost me at “Federal agencies are run by experts.”

[@donjindra]

Overturning that Chevron decision would be very good news. Bureaucrats should not be governing this country. If congress wants to give the executive power, they need to be very specific about the extent and limits of that power.

[@jdubb1973]

Most federal agencies have way to much power this is a good thing. Regulation doesn't always mean safe. They don't tell you that it will also make it harder for some of theese federal agencies to take away some of your rights.

[@MrRhomas913]

Maybe the congress will write less ambiguous laws

[@jeffc2052]

It’s called government overreach…plain and simple…

[@redsable6119]

Most new regulations are only written after blood has been spilled, how much more blood will be spilled tossing them out the window.

[@pauljasmine353]

If Cheveron is overturned then then the responsibility of laws goes backed to congress.

[@ThousandDollarSparkler]

cause they notoriously are very accountable for their actions

[@failedmusician5157]

This is awesome. I hope we finally fix this problem of overpower and over regulation from the unelected.

[@joshmerchant8737]

They are appointed, paid, and accountable to the elected people. In this specific regard they are functionally similar to the supreme court. If the people who make the regulations do something you don't like, complain to your relevant congressperson. In this specific regard, they are more accountable than the supreme court. The power in regulation wouldn't actually change anyways; it was always, and would still be, congresses power. Regulations would still apply with the same authority. This potential overturn would just require congresspersons spend more TIME on regulations, being more specific, giving more direct orders, etc etc. The bureaucracy would get slower and MORE inefficient than it is already.

[@failedmusician5157]

@@joshmerchant8737 I think you meant to say ‘appointed, paid, and accountable to the political party they serve’

[@RobinDale50]

What happens is unelected bureaucrats would no longer be able to make law and that power would go back to the rightful legislature(s) like Congress.

[@alexwyatt2911]

Agencies don’t make laws, goofball. Congress enacted legislation that granted regulatory power to agencies. Duh.

[@RobinDale50]

@@alexwyatt2911 Oh? You think so? Ok then. Try to make a short barrelled rifle without the tax stamp and see how fast you are arrested. (That, by the way, according to them, means you broke the LAW) So since the ATF is not a lawmaking agency and SBR's are a "rule" and "policy" of the ATF, you would be 100% safe, right?

[@alexwyatt2911]

@@RobinDale50 Buddy, what do you think “regulatory power” means?

[@NoName-tq9fi]

@@RobinDale50 SBRs are actually a bad example. SBRs are defined in the NFA, a law passed by congress, with authority to regulate given to the executive branch, so the ATF has been given clear authority to regulate the reasonably clear rules concerning their description and legality. Now youcan argue the NFA is unconstitutional, but that is a totally different discussion. Now what the ATF is trying to do with pistol braces, that is a different issue. Trying to make up rules to now classify as SBRs what were previously pistols, with no change in law, that is an issue. An even bigger issue is the change of the definition of "machine gun" to outlaw previously-legal force-reset triggers, bump stocks, etc. This type of agency overreach is exactly why this case exists. The ATF literally took a crystal-clear definition of "machine gun", decided that what it says isn't really what congress meant, and just changed the rules with no change in law. And their rule interpretation is in direct contradiction of the very specific and technically-clear wording of the laws passed by congress. THIS is a golden example of why Chevron has failed, despite the courts belief 40 years ago it would make things better.

[@ShaneZettelmier]

All regulation should be proposed by Congress and because they are very much potentially infringing on the rights of the citizens. It should require more than 2/3 vote to pass, Congress, until then, they should never be enforced. Sorry, somebody’s cousin who got a job and is some sort of activist should not be able to make law. There’s a reason we have a few hundred people in Congress to represent the people in deciding on these things, the idea that any one person or one agency should be able to make any kind of law is ridiculous. The idea that they can take an existing law and just reinterpret it anyway they see fit is the same thing. If they think it should be enforced then they should write proposal and submit it to Congress and it should be voted on until then it’s none of their business with the people do with their freedom. Their job is to enforce existing law not do whatever they want, and pretend that they have authority to create laws and regulations, that’s not their job.

[@jonasfermefors]

I think US trade will suffer if regulations are removed, to the EU in particular but to other countries too. European consumers are already unhappy with poor regulations on GMO products from USA and this would probably lead to import bans on goods in many sectors from the US.

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

Not exactly. Companies in the USA would still have a desire to export to the UK and EU. They would still follow all EU and UK laws to get their products imported there.

[@jonathonmerrell9554]

The FDA and USDA approved synthetically cultivated chicken "meat” and fanken-fish GMO nonsense.

[@jonasfermefors]

@@FinalLugiaGuardian They would but if the EU doesn't trust a sector generally then they tend to favor banning.. it has already been suggested for some products.

[@jonasfermefors]

@@jonathonmerrell9554 Yes, sometimes the US lobbying works but the voters don't like it, so it's in uphill battle for the US to convince the EU

[@bobbrown8661]

I Cant imagine MTG having any expertise on literally anything at all.

[@jadapinkett1656]

Keep listening to those "experts."

[@Ph03nix123O]

Under the social contract the government is put in place to protect your rights and freedoms under the constitution, not to manage every aspect of your life. The chevron deference creates an overly regulatory government costing the citizenry more, both in the cost of government and the cost of the goods being regulated. This leads to the crushing of smaller businesses that don't have the capital to take on the government. If the regulations were so great, then we'd have good food and clean water. Instead we have over processed food full of chemicals and no nutrients, and recycled waste water full of chemicals. Finally, this will force the congress to write more specific laws instead of thousands of vague ways to regulate society, and moving the executive branch back to enacting the laws instead of determining them.

[@mvvpro8688]

Bolts on airplanes, for example. Would be nice if someone else than Boeing controlled if they have been installed before the doors come off in mid air.

[@Zoe-c9z]

Watch the documentary about the meat slaughterhouses, before regulations, if you want an eye opener

[@BigSlimyBlob]

I mean, sure, people got sick and died. But the slaughterhouse owners made more money, and isn't that what really matters here?

[@MrBreeze66]

Chevron deference is where congress abdicates its authority to career bureaucrats. That never should have happened in the first place.

[@davidfairless1028]

No regulation should be promulgated without Congress voting on it. They need to actually work in Washington.

[@FinalLugiaGuardian]

That is what happened in the aftermath of Taylor v Huerta (the drone registration case). The FAA acted unilaterally in 2015, making drone registration compulsory as a condition of flying in the USA. The regulation was struck down because Congress didn't give the FAA the power to do that. Later, the FAA lobbied the Congress to write its regulation into statute and, upon reauthorization of the FAA, the Congress did just that and wrote the FAA's desired regulation of drones into statute. That's how it's supposed to work. Also worth noting. The judge who wrote the majority opinion in the Taylor v Huerta case is now on the Supreme Court.

[@SunnyIlha]

Remember when a Corporation business was allowed to be the same as a person, a human being. I wonder if many remember that, which is still in place. It isn't was, past tense, actually. It still is.

[@karoslif9818]

With all the government gains in the last decade it's nice to see a chance of it shrinking for a change.

[@xykeem4805]

It has been overturned🤦🏾‍♂️

[@Kimberly-qg3ks]

Supreme Court is in big money’s pocket

[@applesauce1680]

It's about time unelected bureaucrats are stopped !! 🤠

[@100pyatt]

💯✅💯 YES⚠️