The Facts of the Chevron Case [No. 86] 

That’s why I’m watching this video today.

We're cooked

The water has been slowly heating. It'll boil soon.

By Federalist Society judges, mind you

Yeah it’s really sad. And every single one of those conservative judges who overturned it said they would respect precedent during their nomination hearings. They are such liars.

There has never been a guarantee..

Yes and it means that politicians should be passing laws instead of vacationing.

I take is as: now, if a company decides to do some funny business, they can not just shift the blame to a nameless/faceless 3-letter-agency (where that particular bought-out clerk/officer has long moved up the ladder and away from being identified by authorities from being punished) . Now, a SPECIFIC person in that corporation must take responsibility for an illegal act, and be sent to prison. Any one wants to become one? I thought not. That's the point. No more: "oh, these ppl frim that building said it was safe and effective and we must safe the planet" & "oh, no, it was you, ppl yourselves! Well, those that were here before you" kind of a travesty.

every regulation law ever written doesn't provide specific details for every single edge case for decades to come... or it would be 1000x longer bill. now, companies can litigate their edge cases in court instead and let judges decide. this is a power grab from one of the 3 pillars of our democracy. you better hope the life-appointed judge in your federal district is competent lol.

​@@notarealperson9709 it's not a power grab, it is realigning the balance of power. Also it makes 3rd party experts actually repected instead of always siding with "in-house experts" which somehow seemingly side with the "house" to which they belong to.

Legislatures pass laws, and The executive passes administrative rules. However, the courts role is that of interpretation. Cheveron is not compatible with seperation of powers because the executive has no proper right of interpretation of the law given the proper executive role in a democracy. The proper executive power is one of enforcement only - and thats before you get to Daubert. (Many cases involving Cheveron also invoke Daubert by their very nature). For this reason alone, I find Cheveron to be bad law, unless 1. we can claim some reason Daubert shouldnt apply against the government. And 2. Create an exception to deal with rule making amuck.

Lol....slave??...comment didn't age well

You're thinking of the best case scenario. Think of the worst case where federal agencies are violating your civil rights in order to enforce laws. You sue because your civil rights are infringed but the courts can't review the case because "Chevron". Technically the government can't violate your civil rights but if they can evade judicial review then they actually can, which isn't right. It's BS.

I believe you’re going to need to cry more.

Yes, there are limits on unelected government beurocrats, who want to just make stuff up and it be law… It’s the separation of powers, heard of it? It’s in the constitution, this is America… So, now laws are a power given to congress by WE THE PEOPLE.. The executive branch(President), you know, those unelected bureaucrats…does not have the authority or power to make laws…WE THE PEOPLE, didn’t give that to him..

​@allan339 except it's literally a popularity contest and they don't even read the bills they sign already. It's in their interest to support big donating corporations, I've a feeling many inconvenient regulations for these industries will just magically disappear, regardless of the negative externalities.

It would take an amendment change.

​@@christina678and half the country just wants to disband the government

The idea behind rule making authority is that congress passes the law and the agency fleshes out the pragmatic details as to how to make it "go" in actual practice. 18 USC 2257 is the classic example. The problem with Cheveron is that Cheveron stands for the proposition that the executive may interpret the law congress passed as to determine what the law requires in this case or that - which is a power properly reserved to the court not the executive agency by reason each branch of government may not delegate its powers to other branches. What Chevron fails to awknowledge is that the non-delegation and seperation of powers doctrines are absolute mandates per the constitutional text considering their purpose. We can create no constitutional exception for the purpose of making the governments life easier if the constitution is to control and constrain the government as intended by its purpose. Phrased differently, the constitution was directly intendend to be a major inconvienence to the government.

Amen Brother! Preach it!

​@@Harlem55they overreach

congress makes laws that the executive branch enforces those laws how they see fit. go back to high school government class.

This comment aged well

a big one

It’s actually evidence that they should since all possibilities should be held into question through many experts of differing opinions. Science isn’t always quick. That’s my two cents.

i don't see how this forces politicians to make laws anymore clear. It seems to me this supreme court has simply given politicians the license to allow more negative environmental impact by the industries which donate more money to said politicians by their lobbyists.

None. RU-vid/Google is a private company and can do anything on their platform. You agreed to the terms and conditions

@@ajohndaeal-asad6731 and what motivated them to drop a TON of $ on having tech to remove it? Convince me they did it on their own volition, "bcs they are a private company". We heard this story before. Before the X discovered cen*oring was done on the orders of the agencies. Could have never known that. Why would we have your confidence now?

​@@ajohndaeal-asad6731so you are saying utility companies, if they don't like how you vote, should be able to cut your service. You tube and Google are integral partsxofvlife now. Like utilities, it would be difficult to get along in daily life without them. You can't not agree to there terms, so they shouldn't be able to target customers.

And you are about to get poison in your drinking water from the nearby powerplant and you'll be gone too

Nope. Most of us disagree with you. It was an important precedent for safety and public health.

@@squidleyskidley very important

I hope you have a shitload of bottled water... because our water is about to become poisonous