mdgoonah41 there will obviously be consequences, potentially very damaging ones, but the technocrats that chevron deference enabled don't exactly embody my idea of good governance, either. There is a logic to the idea that bureacrats and cops should not be allowed to define the laws they enforce or execute. Theres no reason I can see that the judicial system can't avail themselves of the same expert opinions in the course of due process. Of course, it requires that we maintain an independent judiciary that isn't corrupt...

      Coombs what this decision does is essentially say that some lunatic on the 5th circuit is better equipped to set clean water standards than the EPA.

      its going to be an unmitigated disaster

          I've only watched a few clips but the 2 of them arguing about Bidens golf handicap was just insane.

          mdgoonah41 — it’s a touch “chicken and egg” in that we don’t really know if Biden wanted to run, or if the DNC though he was the best candidate.

          Regardless, whoever made the decision got it wrong.

          The challenge is that the Dems need to find someone who can win the swing states. There’s little that unites Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. However, I’m not sure a gay nominee (no matter how qualified and intelligent both are) will resonate to moderate voters in most of those states. From there you look to Newsom or Whitmer, and neither feels that strong either.

              MistaT newsom probably has the most name recognition nationally (not sure its good recognition) and i think shapiro would be maybe the best candidate on merits. hes got a good record here in PA

                mdgoonah41 I don't love what's happening, but this is a chicken little take. Interpretation of law is the job of the judiciary. I don't really see how this transfers any power from congress or any lawmaker - in fact, it seems to me it should do just the opposite. The executive branch gets hobbled, but that doesn't seem all that bad to me, especially considering who generally gets to be president...

                    Coombs there is nothing chicken little about it.

                    In Chevron, the court unanimously announced an important principle of law that governed the nation until Friday: When a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of it. Why? Congress delegates countless important calls to agencies—directing the EPA, for instance, to limit harmful benzene emissions, rather than providing the precise formula to determine what level of benzene emissions is harmful to humans. Congress writes statutes broadly because it expects these agencies to respond to new facts and adjust their enforcement accordingly.

                    Crucially, these agencies are staffed with experts who have deep knowledge and experience in the area where Congress seeks to regulate. Such experts can understand and execute regulations more proficiently than federal judges, who are, at best, dilettantes in most fields of regulation. For example, an EPA scientist is unlikely to confuse nitrous oxide (laughing gas) with nitrogen oxide (a smog-causing emission), as Justice Neil Gorsuch did in a Thursday opinion blocking an EPA rule. Moreover, most agencies are staffed with political appointees whom the president can appoint and remove at will. That makes them far more accountable to the citizenry than federal judges, who are guaranteed life tenure no matter how badly they butcher the law.

                    Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, is a masterwork of alarm and despair. “A rule of judicial humility,” she wrote, “gives way to a rule of judicial hubris.” The justice pulled no punches, bemoaning the majority’s reckless arrogance with outrage and contempt. “In one fell swoop,” the justice explained, “the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the country’s administrative czar."

                    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/elena-kagan-dissent-supreme-court-john-roberts-chevron-disaster.html

                      and of course, this sums it up

                      Take a step back and consider how radically—and underhandedly—this Supreme Court is reshaping modern governance. By killing Chevron just one day after undermining agencies’ enforcement actions, the conservative supermajority is kneecapping the administrative state. It shares that goal with Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the far-right activists behind Project 2025. The Supreme Court is imposing a MAGA vision of the law on America, giving unelected judges near-unfathomable power to override the policy choices of the democratic branches. Through rulings dressed up in legalese, it strips power from the citizens and their elected representatives, establishing a monarchical judiciary with no known limits on its own authority. Anyone who cares about government of the people, by the people, for the people should share Kagan’s horror at what this court has wrought and what comes next

                      democrats are too cowardly to try and actually reform the court. republicans control the federal judiciary now, and likely will for the rest of this generation, if not longer. this ruling essentially puts every future democratic administration in a chokehold. attempt to put any kind of regulation in place the right disagrees with, and the court can step in and overrule them.

                      more

                      The implications of Loper Bright are too sweeping to exhaustively detail here, but its impact will be especially relevant in cases where, say, a federal agency is in Democratic hands, and a reviewing court is in conservative hands. How should “forever chemicals” be regulated? Don’t ask scientists who understand these chemicals’ harmful impacts on humans and the environment—ask Justice Neil Gorsuch, whose expertise is such that he recently authored an opinion about EPA regulation of “nitrogen oxides” while repeatedly referring to “nitrous oxide,” better known as laughing gas. How should geographic areas be defined for purposes of Medicare hospital reimbursements? Previously, that would have been a good question for the people running Medicare; now, it could fall to the likes of Judge Aileen Cannon. What regulations can the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issue to protect workers engaged in potentially dangerous work? That’s a fantastic decision not for regulators who have spent their careers dealing with actual workplace injuries, but for Judge Jim Ho, who is of the opinion that doctors experience an “aesthetic injury” when a woman gets an abortion.

                      https://ballsandstrikes.org/scotus/loper-bright-supreme-court-war-on-government-just-getting-started/

                      Coombs I'm not too familiar with how it works in America and would need to read more into this but that would be my initial feelings as well.

                      MistaT From there you look to Newsom or Whitmer, and neither feels that strong either.

                      Bloody hell the options are bad man.

                          Lol Newsom would be a mistake. Would be an easy attack over his record in California. Sky high prices for everything with highest taxes here but then there's a whole of host other issues. I'm sure the rest of America would love to have that!

                          I guess given the Dems love for a diverse candidate (not a white male), Whitmer would be the best choice she's from Michigan. Would help for WI and PA too.

                          In 12 years the decline has been incredible. This is elderly abuse at this stage.

                          trump actually praised CNN for how they handled the debate. that pivot to 'the middle' they chose to take 2 years ago is working out well

                          Mirth Is Kamala Harris that much worse? Surely it’s better if she stands instead of Biden

                          In the comments I've just seen this

                          This is what happens when you pick unqualified candidates for VP. She was dreadful in the debates last time and I think we all know why she got the job!

                              SCOTUS just ruled in favor of trump in the immunity case. the POTUS is now a literal king who is accountable to no one. we are cooked.


                              Hasn't that always been the case? Seems like an unofficial rule has just been put down in writing.

                              Obviously there needs to be clarity as what an official and unofficial action is.

                                JazzG Hasn't that always been the case?

                                Kind of. Depends what you do. Just don't try to make peace with Americas enemies and you can get away with anything else.

                                  Seems difficult to justify anything the president does related to election certification an "official act", seeing as the FEC and EAC are overseen by house and senate committees and are independent agencies over which the president has no jurisdiction.

                                    Coombs perhaps, but such a ruling does feel like it was aimed at muddying the waters just enough so that trumps legal team can squirm out of the Georgia and DC cases. it also re-emphasises that the supreme court is partisan body that will rule in favour of republicans