• dudinax@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    to adapt language beyond it’s original meaning

    If the executive’s rules leading to Loper Bright were not reasonable, the court wouldn’t have had a reason to overturn Chevron in order to decide against it.

    Edit: the fact that court first wisely delegated the power to set regulatory rules doesn’t change the fact that they unwisely took it back.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think for the court it was an issue of making wise policy choices but of who had what authority, and what did the law say about it. The court simply didn’t have anything enabling them to delegate their powers in the Chevron case.

      The separation of powers is core to the structure of our government, delegating powers onto other branches nullifies that. Hence the non delegation doctrine. Perhaps it [Chevron] may be good policy but it simply isn’t how our government is structured.

      • dudinax@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        The court simply didn’t have anything enabling them to delegate their powers in the Chevron case.

        They made up presidential immunity a few days later, then gave themselves control over it.

        The court has a long tradition of deferring to the elected branches on matters of policy. This is based on the principal that voters should have a say. If a rule is reasonable under existing law, then changing it is properly the work of the legislature.