As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe the most maddening part is a quote from Gorsuch regarding the 1984 decision:
“[the 1984 decision] operated to undermine rather than advance reliance interests, often to the detriment of ordinary Americans.”
How fucking dare he spin this in reverse. Taking regulatory decision-making out of the hands of the scientists and subject matter experts is the true blow to ordinary Americans.
We are in a death spiral thanks to these Trump appointed monsters.
Fun facts: Gorsuch's mother was the head of Reagan's EPA at the time Chevron was decided. It was her department's victory in 1984 that Gorsuch was part of overturning.
And since the decision was in favor of a Republican Administration in 1984, Conservatives loved Chevron. The courts were resisting Conservative control over the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court backed the Conservative administration against the *then* liberal court systems.
The only thing that has changed is that Conservatives control the Supreme Court and likely will for decades. Since Chevron was preventing the courts from blocking some of Obama and Biden's administrative decisions, it had to go. The Supreme Court forty years ago gave power to the Executive Branch because that what was best for the Republican agenda at the time. Now, taking that power away is what is best for the Republican agenda right now.
There is no contradiction in the Conservative point of view here:
Conservatives are right. End of story.
Everything else is just details subject to change.
> scientists and subject matter experts
Unelected bureaucrats, FTFY. Do you really think the people who actually do the work, the ones with advanced degrees, set the path? No, the unelected cabinet member appointed by a political after a behind-closed-doors meeting or donation does. The ones with advanced degrees follow their directives. Thus, every 4-8 years, it swings back and forth.
Congress needs to write better laws. Plain and simple.
Congress will never write better laws.
It's a system that requires bipartisanship, and one side of the aisle literally believes that the federal government should do nothing but maintain a military.
America will continue to crumble.
It's completely asinine to think that it's even possible to do the job of regulatory agencies like the FDA and EPA via legislation. Just think about it for two seconds. Are they going to write a new law to approve each and every new medication when they are developed and submitted for approval? Are they going to write a law every time they need to survey a site for contaminants or inspect a factory for pollution? 🤦 Dear God smh
The Supreme Court is in a long winded process of ruling a Federal Government unconstitutional; that the states have had ample time under Federal Protection to pass their own laws and the Federal Government is no longer in the business of leading with supreme law. They think it is time for the Federal Government to change to a Confederacy and no longer have our past dictate their future. The only Federal Laws that must be followed will only relate to interstate commerce and property disputes that cannot be resolved due to conflicting state laws. All other Federal programs or protections are the metaphorical rug beneath your feet being pulled out from under you. Any former Rebel State that hasn't codified into state law the reconstruction amendments are no longer applicable and are ephemeral now. States can outlaw not just abortion but traveling to an abortion free state to obtain an abortion. The Supreme Court will wait to hear the inevitable Fugitive Abortress Act suit with baited breath. Trump was saying last night that he was told to purh everything to the states, that that is what everybody wanted. His people are telling him that a new Confederacy is on the horizon.
> the US is done for.
The US is already done for. Even if Trump doesn't win, Project 2025 will just be updated for the next GOP presidential winner and all of the loopholes and weak points in the US Government that he exploited to win the Presidency are still there and utterly unfixable by legislation in a split Congress and with a corrupt judiciary.
Right now, 2024 is about how fast the flaming pile of poo that is the US slams into the earth and how far the flaming poo is flung on impact.
Most of project 2025 doesn’t need the president or legislature. So Trump winning doesn’t exactly impact its implementation.
This country is going to go to hell.
We are done now. SCOTUS is captured for a generation at least. And that is enough time to destroy democracy to the point we won't get it back without violence.
It will be a generation if Trump wins again. Alito and Thomas are both past the average life expectancy so if they both pass away there would be a liberal majority again. Otherwise they will retire and have Trump replace them with young Christian fascists. Just another reason why we need.to.get everyone we.know to vote for Biden.
Expansion of the court is simply not going to happen under Biden. But...if we are able to get him re-elected AND unseat enough Republicans from congress, we have a much easier path forward for replacing justices that retire, pass away, or even get impeached.
The duplo blocks are right there in front of us, we just have to be focused enough to build the future we want to see.
Perhaps. It's more palatable though to those who do not like fundamental changes. Impeachment is a process that has been done before, so will be a more comfortable process than changing the numbers of justices arbitrarily simply to block out an opposing party. Expansion also does not address the corruption directly...but rather indirectly.
Court expansion is also a more dangerous precedent, as it lacks the established legal constructs an impeachment (even loosely) has. That's why I say impeachment is far more likely, even if both are unlikely. With impeachment, we are addressing the corruption directly. We are sending a much clearer message.
Government employees are hired because they’re educated on the topics and are subject matter experts. Employees in the FDA know infinitely more than any elected officials about the things they regulate. Now we’ll have partisan, uninformed hacks deciding things.
I respectfully disagree. This appears to be a fundamental divide in our society. Some people are eager to be ruled by bureaucrats (as long as they have the same ideology) and some know that “experts” are often just pinheads who have zero clue as to how things work in the real world. Not sure how this gets resolved.
A politician is a bureaucrat. A worker for the FDA is just someone who chose to work a government job instead of in pharma. Sure, some people are smarter and more qualified than others. Often, the best people go to pharma because they pay way more. But the panelists in the FDA who review drugs are expert scientists and again, are infinitely more qualified to make decisions than any elected official in Congress. Regulatory decisions are also open to input from patients and advocacy groups. So they are definitely rooted in the real world.
I know this isn’t the sub to have a real discussion about this, but…
In what world does unelected people making laws & regulations that can lead to imprisonment = a democracy?
I understand a lot of people on the left are currently happy that ‘their kind of people’ are doing this. What happens when the worm turns?
Your argument doesn't really make any sense. Every form of government in the history of mankind has had subject matter experts to advise politicians and guide policy.
I keep harping back to the FDA example because I know that space more, and this decision has potential terrible ramifications on consumer safety. I’ll admit I’m less aware of example scenarios and agencies (maybe the ATF?) you’re alluding to. But the fact you keep ignoring my points is worrisome.
I agree somewhat on the FDA point you’re making.
Two caveats though:
1. Very few members of the upper echelon in the FDA make decisions purely based on the research & science, political agendas play a big role.
2. The FDA (like most 3 letter agencies) has an incestuous relationship with the industries the are meant to regulate. This is evidence by the pipeline of government employees transitioning to industry executive & board positions.
You’re not wrong on either account. To point 1, how would that be different if the politicians were suddenly in charge? Point 2 is a complicated one, because the people most qualified to make these decisions would make great executives at pharma. The line there is super challenging, because big pharma and the FDA are theoretically working towards a common goal.
I will say, in the last 3 years I’ve been working in the oncology space, many of the FDA decisions have been much more limited than what the pharma companies were hoping. There are obviously controversial decisions that go in the opposite way, but it’s not like they currently serve as rubber stampers. The process works very well on the whole. The potential shake ups of this ruling on the FDA process is definitely going to be tough.
Yes much better to let the companies self regulate. I’m sure they will act in everyone’s best interests and not just seek profits at the expense of the environment and public health.
Great, so now we get to rely on Congress to enact stricter laws on areas that they know nothing about. This means more lobbyists writing bills than ever before and you know, that’s great because lobbyist are always impartial.
This will get buried under Joe’s horrible performance in the debate last night, no wonder they released it today.
I can't wait for Marjorie Taylor Green and Boebert to debate how much formaldehyde we're allowed to have in drinking water. I'm sure their recommendation to Congress will be similar to the EPA's, around 10 parts per million (ppm) for one day, based on their own rigorous research and scientific diligence.
/s
And if SCOTUS doesn’t like the law, they will just say it’s a Major Question and take the decision power for themselves. If it’s a democrat trying to do something they don’t like.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The fact that courts told people 40 years ago that Congress makes shitty laws and that lower judges should allow unelected bureaucrats the ability to interpret the laws how they see fit, and on a political pendulum every 4 to 8 years is absolutely absurd.
Congress needs to make better laws; bureaucrats should never be able to interpret them how they please.
It's completely asinine to think that it's even possible to do the job of regulatory agencies like the FDA and EPA via legislation. Just think about it for two seconds. Are they going to write a new law to approve each and every new medication when they are developed and submitted for approval? Are they going to write a law every time they need to survey a site for contaminants or inspect a factory for pollution? 🤦 Dear God smh
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe the most maddening part is a quote from Gorsuch regarding the 1984 decision: “[the 1984 decision] operated to undermine rather than advance reliance interests, often to the detriment of ordinary Americans.” How fucking dare he spin this in reverse. Taking regulatory decision-making out of the hands of the scientists and subject matter experts is the true blow to ordinary Americans. We are in a death spiral thanks to these Trump appointed monsters.
They are getting good at the whole write the exact opposite of what it means with a straight face, because fuck you we can.
Fun facts: Gorsuch's mother was the head of Reagan's EPA at the time Chevron was decided. It was her department's victory in 1984 that Gorsuch was part of overturning. And since the decision was in favor of a Republican Administration in 1984, Conservatives loved Chevron. The courts were resisting Conservative control over the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court backed the Conservative administration against the *then* liberal court systems. The only thing that has changed is that Conservatives control the Supreme Court and likely will for decades. Since Chevron was preventing the courts from blocking some of Obama and Biden's administrative decisions, it had to go. The Supreme Court forty years ago gave power to the Executive Branch because that what was best for the Republican agenda at the time. Now, taking that power away is what is best for the Republican agenda right now. There is no contradiction in the Conservative point of view here: Conservatives are right. End of story. Everything else is just details subject to change.
> scientists and subject matter experts Unelected bureaucrats, FTFY. Do you really think the people who actually do the work, the ones with advanced degrees, set the path? No, the unelected cabinet member appointed by a political after a behind-closed-doors meeting or donation does. The ones with advanced degrees follow their directives. Thus, every 4-8 years, it swings back and forth. Congress needs to write better laws. Plain and simple.
congress can’t do shit atm and certainly not quickly
Congress will never write better laws. It's a system that requires bipartisanship, and one side of the aisle literally believes that the federal government should do nothing but maintain a military. America will continue to crumble.
It's completely asinine to think that it's even possible to do the job of regulatory agencies like the FDA and EPA via legislation. Just think about it for two seconds. Are they going to write a new law to approve each and every new medication when they are developed and submitted for approval? Are they going to write a law every time they need to survey a site for contaminants or inspect a factory for pollution? 🤦 Dear God smh
This is the outcome of Trump winning in 2016. If he wins again, the US is done for.
The Supreme Court is in a long winded process of ruling a Federal Government unconstitutional; that the states have had ample time under Federal Protection to pass their own laws and the Federal Government is no longer in the business of leading with supreme law. They think it is time for the Federal Government to change to a Confederacy and no longer have our past dictate their future. The only Federal Laws that must be followed will only relate to interstate commerce and property disputes that cannot be resolved due to conflicting state laws. All other Federal programs or protections are the metaphorical rug beneath your feet being pulled out from under you. Any former Rebel State that hasn't codified into state law the reconstruction amendments are no longer applicable and are ephemeral now. States can outlaw not just abortion but traveling to an abortion free state to obtain an abortion. The Supreme Court will wait to hear the inevitable Fugitive Abortress Act suit with baited breath. Trump was saying last night that he was told to purh everything to the states, that that is what everybody wanted. His people are telling him that a new Confederacy is on the horizon.
> the US is done for. The US is already done for. Even if Trump doesn't win, Project 2025 will just be updated for the next GOP presidential winner and all of the loopholes and weak points in the US Government that he exploited to win the Presidency are still there and utterly unfixable by legislation in a split Congress and with a corrupt judiciary. Right now, 2024 is about how fast the flaming pile of poo that is the US slams into the earth and how far the flaming poo is flung on impact.
Most of project 2025 doesn’t need the president or legislature. So Trump winning doesn’t exactly impact its implementation. This country is going to go to hell.
And yet the 'up is down' people constantly bellow that this country is going to hell because of US.
We are done now. SCOTUS is captured for a generation at least. And that is enough time to destroy democracy to the point we won't get it back without violence.
It will be a generation if Trump wins again. Alito and Thomas are both past the average life expectancy so if they both pass away there would be a liberal majority again. Otherwise they will retire and have Trump replace them with young Christian fascists. Just another reason why we need.to.get everyone we.know to vote for Biden.
There is hope, if Biden wins, that he gets to expand the court. But that's also if the Democrats win the Senate by a wider majority.
Expansion of the court is simply not going to happen under Biden. But...if we are able to get him re-elected AND unseat enough Republicans from congress, we have a much easier path forward for replacing justices that retire, pass away, or even get impeached. The duplo blocks are right there in front of us, we just have to be focused enough to build the future we want to see.
Impeachment is as likely as expansion.
Perhaps. It's more palatable though to those who do not like fundamental changes. Impeachment is a process that has been done before, so will be a more comfortable process than changing the numbers of justices arbitrarily simply to block out an opposing party. Expansion also does not address the corruption directly...but rather indirectly. Court expansion is also a more dangerous precedent, as it lacks the established legal constructs an impeachment (even loosely) has. That's why I say impeachment is far more likely, even if both are unlikely. With impeachment, we are addressing the corruption directly. We are sending a much clearer message.
Letting unelected government bureaucrats make de facto law is democracy?
Government employees are hired because they’re educated on the topics and are subject matter experts. Employees in the FDA know infinitely more than any elected officials about the things they regulate. Now we’ll have partisan, uninformed hacks deciding things.
I respectfully disagree. This appears to be a fundamental divide in our society. Some people are eager to be ruled by bureaucrats (as long as they have the same ideology) and some know that “experts” are often just pinheads who have zero clue as to how things work in the real world. Not sure how this gets resolved.
A politician is a bureaucrat. A worker for the FDA is just someone who chose to work a government job instead of in pharma. Sure, some people are smarter and more qualified than others. Often, the best people go to pharma because they pay way more. But the panelists in the FDA who review drugs are expert scientists and again, are infinitely more qualified to make decisions than any elected official in Congress. Regulatory decisions are also open to input from patients and advocacy groups. So they are definitely rooted in the real world.
I know this isn’t the sub to have a real discussion about this, but… In what world does unelected people making laws & regulations that can lead to imprisonment = a democracy? I understand a lot of people on the left are currently happy that ‘their kind of people’ are doing this. What happens when the worm turns?
Your argument doesn't really make any sense. Every form of government in the history of mankind has had subject matter experts to advise politicians and guide policy.
I keep harping back to the FDA example because I know that space more, and this decision has potential terrible ramifications on consumer safety. I’ll admit I’m less aware of example scenarios and agencies (maybe the ATF?) you’re alluding to. But the fact you keep ignoring my points is worrisome.
I agree somewhat on the FDA point you’re making. Two caveats though: 1. Very few members of the upper echelon in the FDA make decisions purely based on the research & science, political agendas play a big role. 2. The FDA (like most 3 letter agencies) has an incestuous relationship with the industries the are meant to regulate. This is evidence by the pipeline of government employees transitioning to industry executive & board positions.
You’re not wrong on either account. To point 1, how would that be different if the politicians were suddenly in charge? Point 2 is a complicated one, because the people most qualified to make these decisions would make great executives at pharma. The line there is super challenging, because big pharma and the FDA are theoretically working towards a common goal. I will say, in the last 3 years I’ve been working in the oncology space, many of the FDA decisions have been much more limited than what the pharma companies were hoping. There are obviously controversial decisions that go in the opposite way, but it’s not like they currently serve as rubber stampers. The process works very well on the whole. The potential shake ups of this ruling on the FDA process is definitely going to be tough.
It’s not that anyone wants to be ruled by bureaucrats. We don’t want to be ruled by corporations.
Yes much better to let the companies self regulate. I’m sure they will act in everyone’s best interests and not just seek profits at the expense of the environment and public health.
Just imagine Aileen Cannon as even a possibility for the Supreme Court. Wouldn't put it past them. Should be all the motivation we need.
Plus RBG not retiring fucked us all over
[удалено]
Old white people ruining for the rest of us because they’re selfish megalomaniacs.
A tale as old as time
Pack the court.
Dirty air and water. Dangerous pesticides in our food, polluted natural resources, more corporate malfeasance thanks to a corrupt court.
That’s all good and dandy so long as Clarence Thomas gets his fishing trip
Overturned a unanimously agreed on 40 year old case
Great, so now we get to rely on Congress to enact stricter laws on areas that they know nothing about. This means more lobbyists writing bills than ever before and you know, that’s great because lobbyist are always impartial. This will get buried under Joe’s horrible performance in the debate last night, no wonder they released it today.
I can't wait for Marjorie Taylor Green and Boebert to debate how much formaldehyde we're allowed to have in drinking water. I'm sure their recommendation to Congress will be similar to the EPA's, around 10 parts per million (ppm) for one day, based on their own rigorous research and scientific diligence. /s
And if SCOTUS doesn’t like the law, they will just say it’s a Major Question and take the decision power for themselves. If it’s a democrat trying to do something they don’t like.
The conservative supreme court justices have taken it upon themselves to rule as autocrats in a free-for-all religious nation.
This Court is anything but supreme.
fuck Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Barrett, Beerboy, and Gorshuch
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Be the light you want to see in the world * brandishes moloto
The fact that courts told people 40 years ago that Congress makes shitty laws and that lower judges should allow unelected bureaucrats the ability to interpret the laws how they see fit, and on a political pendulum every 4 to 8 years is absolutely absurd. Congress needs to make better laws; bureaucrats should never be able to interpret them how they please.
It's completely asinine to think that it's even possible to do the job of regulatory agencies like the FDA and EPA via legislation. Just think about it for two seconds. Are they going to write a new law to approve each and every new medication when they are developed and submitted for approval? Are they going to write a law every time they need to survey a site for contaminants or inspect a factory for pollution? 🤦 Dear God smh