Both chevron related cases were heard before SCOTUS this morning. If anyone is interested in listening to the full audio. (Approx 3hr30min)
(Starts about 7m25s in)
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Di8IxYSTNw
Simply my own take on what I heard:
Interesting oral arguments. No surprise, the pro deference leftist justices and the gooberment defense attorney did most of the jibber jabber. Those two main justices made it quite clear where they stood on the issue and put forth some really ridiculous example questions. Displaying nothing but absolute bias throughout. On the flip side, many of the other justices asked thoughtful questions for clarification and understanding of the arguments being made, rather than using their time simply pushing an agenda.
The main crux of the defense was that overruling chevron would create chaos within the judicial system with every tom, dick and harriet rechallenging 1000's of cases that were decided under deference. Their other main arguments were that deference is "stabilizing" in that it doesn't allow inferior justices to impose personal agandas and it is the presumption that congress wanted agencies that were well versed on a particular issue to be making the laws and determinations... not judges. Or rather... they were using the language "policy decisions" and "interpreting the will of congress... as congress intended them to" vs. what they are really doing... "law making". That language would have been too obviously contradictory of the courts primary mandate... and they can't admit that's exactly what many agencies are doing under chevron.
The plaintiffs main argument was that deference is in fact destabilizing... in so much that it allows agencies to flip flop at the whims of whoever is occupying the WH, and has created a system where judges charged with interpreting and enforcing congressional law may reach their own conclusions, IE... leaning more toward concluding "X"... but being basically overruled under chevron and forced to accept an agencies "Y" conclusions. Latching on to one or two words within the whole to trigger "ambiguity", and chevron, rather than examining the full context of a law or statue to delineate the intention of congress when the law was passed.
He also argued that deviating from the standard practice of putting a "thumb on the scale" (law of lenity) in favor of the people is not present under chevron and that there exists few tests that must be satisfied in considering the costs or other ramifications toward/against the people. Chevron deference exists as a unique doctrine in that respect which puts it in fault of standard legal doctrines.
Other previous legal doctrines still stand that give agencies conclusions and input special weight and consideration within the courts, but would/should not grant them complete deference, as it does now.
He also brought up kind of a side issue that was troubling, yet a valid discussion on how deference also impacts how congress may be failing to adequately address some of the bigger issues that they should be. Basically avoiding tackling the big/controversial issues and passing laws with a soft touch... that they know they can get away with... while knowing they have their buddies in the executive branch that will implement all the other stuff they actually wanted under chevron deference, anyway.
Caveat: That's just a light skimming over the main arguments and isn't meant to be an in-depth report. It's also not meant to spark a deep political discussion. Simply a main point bulletin on the arguments put in play since Chevron Deference has such a major impact on the 2A as of late. If undone.... it will be a wonderous day for our rights!
(Starts about 7m25s in)
Simply my own take on what I heard:
Interesting oral arguments. No surprise, the pro deference leftist justices and the gooberment defense attorney did most of the jibber jabber. Those two main justices made it quite clear where they stood on the issue and put forth some really ridiculous example questions. Displaying nothing but absolute bias throughout. On the flip side, many of the other justices asked thoughtful questions for clarification and understanding of the arguments being made, rather than using their time simply pushing an agenda.
The main crux of the defense was that overruling chevron would create chaos within the judicial system with every tom, dick and harriet rechallenging 1000's of cases that were decided under deference. Their other main arguments were that deference is "stabilizing" in that it doesn't allow inferior justices to impose personal agandas and it is the presumption that congress wanted agencies that were well versed on a particular issue to be making the laws and determinations... not judges. Or rather... they were using the language "policy decisions" and "interpreting the will of congress... as congress intended them to" vs. what they are really doing... "law making". That language would have been too obviously contradictory of the courts primary mandate... and they can't admit that's exactly what many agencies are doing under chevron.
The plaintiffs main argument was that deference is in fact destabilizing... in so much that it allows agencies to flip flop at the whims of whoever is occupying the WH, and has created a system where judges charged with interpreting and enforcing congressional law may reach their own conclusions, IE... leaning more toward concluding "X"... but being basically overruled under chevron and forced to accept an agencies "Y" conclusions. Latching on to one or two words within the whole to trigger "ambiguity", and chevron, rather than examining the full context of a law or statue to delineate the intention of congress when the law was passed.
He also argued that deviating from the standard practice of putting a "thumb on the scale" (law of lenity) in favor of the people is not present under chevron and that there exists few tests that must be satisfied in considering the costs or other ramifications toward/against the people. Chevron deference exists as a unique doctrine in that respect which puts it in fault of standard legal doctrines.
Other previous legal doctrines still stand that give agencies conclusions and input special weight and consideration within the courts, but would/should not grant them complete deference, as it does now.
He also brought up kind of a side issue that was troubling, yet a valid discussion on how deference also impacts how congress may be failing to adequately address some of the bigger issues that they should be. Basically avoiding tackling the big/controversial issues and passing laws with a soft touch... that they know they can get away with... while knowing they have their buddies in the executive branch that will implement all the other stuff they actually wanted under chevron deference, anyway.
Caveat: That's just a light skimming over the main arguments and isn't meant to be an in-depth report. It's also not meant to spark a deep political discussion. Simply a main point bulletin on the arguments put in play since Chevron Deference has such a major impact on the 2A as of late. If undone.... it will be a wonderous day for our rights!
Last Edited:
