By Patrick Barron
Contrary to popular belief, regulatory agencies do not improve the quality of our lives, nor do they provide safety or security. They need to be abolished, as free markets provide their own effective forms of regulation.
pull down to refresh
related posts
179 sats \ 5 replies \ @freetx 21 May
There have been a number of court cases recently, that if things play out correctly, will derail the Administrative State.
I'm not a lawyer, so I only understand the basics.
- Traditionally, Congress was expected to pass new laws.
- This more or less was the model for rule until the mid-70s when the various regulatory agencies started "filling in the blanks" of what Congress didn't explicitly mention
- Congress then got more and more disinterested in the specifics, only passing laws that outlined in very broad brushstrokes what it wanted to achieve. Letting the agencies fill in the specifics as they came up.
- This came to a head in 1980s in a court case involving Chevron, in which it was battling against some environmental regulations that it said was not a law. This became known as the Chevron Doctrine (ie. that these agencies were allowed to fill in specifics if not clearly defined by Congress)
Now there are 2 cases (I think) in front of SCOTUS which could upend the Chevron doctrine.
One is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondo
I forget the name of the other, but hopefully these come out in favor in scrapping or severely restricting the ability of these agencies to "create laws"
reply
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @Bell_curve 21 May freebie
There is another case about the insufferable EPA vs West Virginia regarding fossil fuels.
EPA wants to destroy fossil fuels. Coal mining and natural gas are big industries in West Virginia.
Ruth Ginsburg was the architect of the Chevron doctrine in 1982 as a DC circuit Judge . I predict the Supreme Court will overturn the Chevron, 5-4 or 6-3.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 21 May
After reading SCOTUS blog, the arguments made by the solicitor general are weak which is significant because the current solicitor general has a sharp legal mind
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined OP 21 May
I have some recollection that one of the new justices is bad on Chevron, but I don’t remember the specifics.
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 21 May
Gorsuch mother was involved in a Chevron case as secretary of interior.
Kavanaugh has been skeptical of the admin state.
Maybe Barrett is open to upholding Chevron but I doubt it
Alito and Thomas will vote to overturn.
Roberts? Who knows
reply
20 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 21 May
Fingers crossed
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @didiplaywell 21 May
While it seems an obvious truth, the argument should attack, IMO, the most compelling aspects of the perception people haves of "State Regulatory Agencies". For once, most people is oblivious of the concept of "the standard", and they have learned to understand only the state interpretation of it, "legislation". That, coupled with the fact that people perceives "State Regulation" essentially as an entity capable of defining the laws of physics, makes for a powerful delusion that will come back again and again if not dissected, exposed, and taught.
reply