politics

19229 readers

3229 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

185

The Plan to Incapacitate the Federal Government: Without Chevron, the executive branch will struggle to do even the most basic work (www.theatlantic.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by MicroWave to c/politics

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Last Wednesday, over the course of three and a half hours of arguments, the conservative and liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court jousted over whether to overrule a 40-year-old case called Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council.

The Chevron case is famous among lawyers—it’s among the most cited cases of all time—because it established the principle that the courts should defer to federal agencies when they interpret the law in the course of carrying out their duties. That may not sound like a big deal, but it is. Chevron shields the executive branch from overly intrusive court review, giving it the flexibility to do its work.

But the case is under threat. Conservative justices on the Supreme Court want to dismantle Chevron, believing that deference is improper because courts—not federal agencies—ought to say what the law is. They may have the votes to scrap the case outright; if not, they will almost certainly narrow its scope.

...

Wherever the truth lies, ditching Chevron is only one part of the conservative legal movement’s ever more successful campaign to intensify judicial controls over the administrative state. In recent years, the justices have produced a new “major questions doctrine” to restrain agencies that do things of great economic or political significance. They have toyed with telling Congress that some of its delegations are so broad as to be unconstitutional. They are exploring new limits on the types of cases that agencies can resolve. And they seem to have upped the intensity with which they review whether agency decisions are “arbitrary.”

Non-paywall link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments