Chevron: Scalia's Evolution

Подписаться 90 тыс.

Просмотров 82 тыс.

50% 1

Toward the beginning of his tenure on the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia was one of the strongest advocates of Chevron deference. But as his career progressed, did Justice Scalia’s views on Chevron evolve? Three law professors, Thomas W. Merrill, Chris Walker, and Kristin E. Hickman, discuss Justice Scalia’s opinion of Chevron deference and how its application may have led him to change his mind.
00:00 - Opening
00:31 - Title Card
00:36 - The Chevron Deference
02:36 - Scalia's Changing Views
05:01 - Court's disagreement on Chevron
06:14 - End Credits
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Related links:
Why is the Chevron Doctrine Still Controversial? [No. 86]
• Why is the Chevron Doc...
Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law
scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/...
Scalia and Gorsuch on Chevron Deference
• Edward Whelan: Scalia ...
Differing views:
Why Scalia Was Wrong About Chevron
fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-...
Justice Scalia & the Evolution of Chevron Deference
• Justice Scalia & the E...
More on Justice Scalia’s Doubts About Chevron
www.yalejreg.com/nc/more-on-j...

Опубликовано:

2 июн 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 26

@kirkbowyer3249 4 года назад

“Law, without equity, though hard and disagreeable, is much more desirable for the public good, than equity without law: which would make every judge a legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion.” William Blackstone 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 62 (4th edition. 1770).

@nateo200 4 года назад

Damnit! You beat me to quoting Blackstone or Joseph Story! Haha. I knew there was a quote on this somewhere between their commentaries.

@charlesloomis2224 5 месяцев назад

If the statute is ambiguous and Congress doesn’t agree with the ruling, Congress should articulate the statute and remove the ambiguity!

@rustybarrel516 Год назад

It looks from WV vs. EPA that maybe they will seek to rein in Chevron with the major questions doctrine rather than try to alter Chevron itself.

@patrickjoyce5750 3 года назад

what is the instrumental beginning at @4.34 ?

@BeckeyGirard 4 года назад

what an incredible loss when he passed.

@chinaberg Год назад

Btw, on the 14 second mark, you show the wrong court.

@kirkbowyer3249 4 года назад

Now, it is of great moment that well-drawn laws should themselves define all the points they possibly can and leave as few as may be to the decision of the judges; and this for several reasons. ARISTOTLE; Rhetoric; Book I. Section 1.

@kirkbowyer3249 4 года назад

First, to find one man or a few men, who are sensible persons and capable of legislating and administering justice is easier than to find a large number. Next, laws are made after long considerations, whereas decisions in courts are given at a short notice, which makes it hard for those who try the case to satisfy the claims of justice and expediency. ARISTOTLE; Rhetoric; Book I. Section 1.

@kirkbowyer3249 4 года назад

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that through the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. President Thomas Jefferson; First Inaugural Address; March 4th, 1801.

@kirkbowyer3249 4 года назад

The weightiest reason of all is that the decision of the lawgiver is not particular but prospective and general, whereas members of the assembly and the jury find it their duty to decide on definite case brought before them. They will often have allowed themselves to be so much influenced by feelings or friendship or hatred or self-interest that they lose any clear vision of the truth and have their judgment obscured by considerations of personal pleasure or pain. ARISTOTLE; Rhetoric; Book I. Section 1.

@kirkbowyer3249 4 года назад

In general, then, the judge should, we say, be allowed to decide as few things as possible. ARISTOTLE; Rhetoric; Book I. Section 1.

@kirkbowyer3249 4 года назад

"VERBIS LEGIS TENACITER INHAERENDUM."

@kirkbowyer3249 4 года назад

1 Saint John 4:20 If any man say: I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother whom he seeth, how can he love God whom he seeth not?

@9879SigmundS 4 года назад

A huge administrative state and then the Chevron doctrine? It’s good to be the king.

@kirkbowyer3249 4 года назад

FEDERALIST #78 May 28th, MDCCLXXVIII Alexander Hamilton "....there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be smaller still who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge." Publius

@pjj9491 4 года назад

Loved Scalia.. am I the only one who is concerned that there was no followup on his death...just sayin'

@n.g.1577 3 года назад

Yes, YOU ARE.

@clairedeiotte8898 2 года назад

I Gree. He was invited to a hunting trip. Then gets killed I. HUNTING ACCIDENT.

@maurygoldblat8982 5 месяцев назад

Pelican Bried

@bryonwatkins1432 3 года назад

GREAT fucking Jurist!!!! Have studied him since 2013!!!!

@evanschwartz7738 Год назад

What would replace Chevron? You do not make reference to this. You really are just claiming a policy judgement: that agencies are bad. Congress disagreed and vested tremendous power in agencies because they are experts. Scalia was right.