Chevron is now overturned by SCOTUS

[wehotex]

Supporters of Chevron, including environmental groups, labor and civil rights organizations, and the Biden administration, told the court that Congress often writes broad statutes to give government experts the leeway to address emerging complex problems. Overturning or scaling back the legal precedent, they said, will hamstring and weaken federal agencies and shift power to the courts and Congress.
Opponents of Chevron, in contrast, told the court that the framework unfairly tips the scales in litigation by requiring judges to systematically favor government regulators over those challenging burdensome regulations. Chevron has allowed federal agencies to flip-flop and impose different rules each time a new administration takes over, they said, leaving judges with little choice but to defer to the changing interpretations of agency officials.

This undoubtedly will help the Texas & Florida FMO cases and subject any future CMS rules to be subject to court decisions brought on by unhappy or crybaby businesses through appeals.

 

[Packerland]

Supporters of Chevron, including environmental groups, labor and civil rights organizations, and the Biden administration, told the court that Congress often writes broad statutes to give government experts the leeway to address emerging complex problems. Overturning or scaling back the legal precedent, they said, will hamstring and weaken federal agencies and shift power to the courts and Congress.
Opponents of Chevron, in contrast, told the court that the framework unfairly tips the scales in litigation by requiring judges to systematically favor government regulators over those challenging burdensome regulations. Chevron has allowed federal agencies to flip-flop and impose different rules each time a new administration takes over, they said, leaving judges with little choice but to defer to the changing interpretations of agency officials.

This undoubtedly will help the Texas & Florida FMO cases and subject any future CMS rules to be subject to court decisions brought on by unhappy or crybaby businesses through appeals.

Aren’t business suppose to protect their self interest…Don’t they owe it to their shareholders and employees?

 

[wehotex]

Aren’t business suppose to protect their self interest…Don’t they owe it to their shareholders and employees?

Yes of course, as long as it is within reason. Citizens United pretty much gives big companies the power to influence the Congress to bend to their will.
If the agencies’ interpretations are weakened and subject to litigation at every turn, how will this affect the public?
I wouldn’t want Congress writing laws that companies can drill oil really close to the coastline or other such laws just because the companies want it.

 

[Yagents]

You mean any president's administration can't just make up rules based on their "interpretation"? You mean they will actually have to face Congress or the courts to pass their sh*t, which will reduce government regulations for all of us? Win !

 

[Packerland]

Yes of course, as long as it is within reason. Citizens United pretty much gives big companies the power to influence the Congress to bend to their will.
If the agencies’ interpretations are weakened and subject to litigation at every turn, how will this affect the public?
I wouldn’t want Congress writing laws that companies can drill oil really close to the coastline or other such laws just because the companies want it.

Companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. This includes challenging laws and regulations that might unfairly impact their business. This isn’t about being 'crybabies'; it’s about protecting their legitimate business interests, which in turn protects the jobs and services they provide. Allowing the higher courts a review process ensures that regulations are fair and reasonable. If every agency's interpretation were final and unchallengeable, it could lead to unchecked regulatory overreach, potentially stifling innovation and economic growth. it would lead to socialism it would lead to government control over everything. Litigation helps maintain a balance, ensuring that both corporate and public interests are fairly considered. While I admit a am not familiar with the Citizens United case.

 

[LeeV]

Supporters of Chevron, including environmental groups, labor and civil rights organizations, and the Biden administration, told the court that Congress often writes broad statutes to give government experts the leeway to address emerging complex problems. Overturning or scaling back the legal precedent, they said, will hamstring and weaken federal agencies and shift power to the courts and Congress.
Opponents of Chevron, in contrast, told the court that the framework unfairly tips the scales in litigation by requiring judges to systematically favor government regulators over those challenging burdensome regulations. Chevron has allowed federal agencies to flip-flop and impose different rules each time a new administration takes over, they said, leaving judges with little choice but to defer to the changing interpretations of agency officials.

This undoubtedly will help the Texas & Florida FMO cases and subject any future CMS rules to be subject to court decisions brought on by unhappy or crybaby businesses through appeals.

My opinion is that Chevron should be overturned. To begin with the statement that "Congress often writes broad statues to give government experts the leeway to address emerging complex problems" is false. They write it so that the whims of the administration may make changes outside of the framework. This leads to the potential for changes with new administrations. The second objection is the statement "shift power to the courts and congress" is a good thing. Why should unelected bureaucrats have this much power. It needs to rest with Congress.

 

[rousemark]

Yes of course, as long as it is within reason. Citizens United pretty much gives big companies the power to influence the Congress to bend to their will.
If the agencies’ interpretations are weakened and subject to litigation at every turn, how will this affect the public?
I wouldn’t want Congress writing laws that companies can drill oil really close to the coastline or other such laws just because the companies want it.

"Within reason"..... i hate that phrase especially when it comes to government regulation. Who decides what is reasonable?

 

[DonP]

Supporters of Chevron, including environmental groups, labor and civil rights organizations, and the Biden administration, told the court that Congress often writes broad statutes to give government experts the leeway to address emerging complex problems. Overturning or scaling back the legal precedent, they said, will hamstring and weaken federal agencies and shift power to the courts and Congress.
Opponents of Chevron, in contrast, told the court that the framework unfairly tips the scales in litigation by requiring judges to systematically favor government regulators over those challenging burdensome regulations. Chevron has allowed federal agencies to flip-flop and impose different rules each time a new administration takes over, they said, leaving judges with little choice but to defer to the changing interpretations of agency officials.

This undoubtedly will help the Texas & Florida FMO cases and subject any future CMS rules to be subject to court decisions brought on by unhappy or crybaby businesses through appeals.

Lol . You think the Supreme Court gives 2 shits about a few cock roach fmo’s and their overrides? What you must understand fmo’s and agents commissions indirectly come off of taxpayer money . Just like the profit of carriers comes at the expense of taxpayers with mediciare products

 

[LeeV]

Yes of course, as long as it is within reason. Citizens United pretty much gives big companies the power to influence the Congress to bend to their will.
If the agencies’ interpretations are weakened and subject to litigation at every turn, how will this affect the public?
I wouldn’t want Congress writing laws that companies can drill oil really close to the coastline or other such laws just because the companies want it.

Do you realize that you are advocating a socialistic approach to government? As I mentioned in an earlier post, these bureaucrats are unelected and can make interpretation's as they see fit. Who are the responsible to? No one. Also, Citizens United is not responsible for any perceived ability to influence the Congress to bend to their will, this was possible before CU.

 

[wehotex]

Lol . You think the Supreme Court gives 2 shits about a few cock roach fmo’s and their overrides? What you must understand fmo’s and agents commissions indirectly come off of taxpayer money . Just like the profit of carriers comes at the expense of taxpayers with mediciare products

The SCOTUS and Congress care about businesses (people) give them $$$.