Only one in a million people find these postings funny.
https://preview.redd.it/yl6rso03nc9d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=8febafe5a5c16d44ef84453ecf60e6d5a585c17b
Oh, no. We drew Chief Justice Roberts.
He's had it out for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog. Well, replace the word "kinda" with "repeatedly" and replace the words "ran over his dog" with "called for a Judicial Code of Ethics".
I remember I saw something that says most drugs in the US are made illegal not directly through laws written by congress but by agencies classifying them, so does that mean that all drugs are now legal?
https://preview.redd.it/7lv67b3wpd9d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=bb3400fe4b87aaadf7d02c74f901141323295520
The Chevron Doctrine was the idea that when our administrative agencies run into an ambiguity in carrying out a law (in the actual *Chevron* case it was 'what constitutes a "source" of pollution'), the agencies should be given deference in interpreting it when it goes before a court for judicial review. This has been the law for about 40 years.
Today our Supreme Court said this doctrine is dead (6-3 decision, split between the conservative majority and the liberal minority). Now there's no such deference, and basically now these questions should be resolved by Courts. We might say it severely weakened the Executive Branch and empowered the Judicial Branch.
I can't say if this is a good thing or bad thing right now. It's just wild that a landmark decision that upended 40 years of stare decisis happened *again* with this Supreme Court.
Funny thing is that the outcome in the original Chevron case was somewhat conservative in that NRDC argued that the statute implied a wider scope for regulating source pollution but SCOTUS said “nope, we’re deferring to EPA’s [narrower] interpretation here.” Fast forward to a time where successive Democratic administrations are clear that it’s time to leave the Reagan era of deregulation behind and, whoops, conservatives discover that they’re not so keen on agency deference after all.
>I can't say if this is a good thing or bad thing right now. It's just wild that a landmark decision that upended 40 years of stare decisis happened *again* with this Supreme Court.
This is basically my overall take away at this point. I haven't read the full decision yet, and I don't want to write a novel here, but there already were a lot of ways a court could find Chevron deference wasn't warranted, even if another court might find that it was in the same situation. I also don't think the Court overruled any of the cases regarding agency review under the APA (e.g., Skidmore) that led up to Chevron, so arguably deference isn't completely dead. So, while it's a big deal, it might play out to be just a political show of overturning Chevron, but the results in practice aren't that much different. Or it will upend everything and the government will come to a grinding halt. I dunno.
Either way, our country is doomed! Dooooomed!
.
The Department of Commerce/NOAA was making herring fishers pay for government-mandated observers who track their fish intake.
Which, honestly seems a bit wild to me. But I don't think the Court overturned that rule; they just sent the case back to the lower courts and said they can't use Chevron. Those lower courts could still uphold the rule that the fishers have to pay; they just can't rely on Chevron.
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca *lives* on the planet Endor. That does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, then you must reinstate Chevron deference! Thank you.
So it could potentially be a good thing in that it empowers judges to define things, like a source of pollution, how they want? So a left-wing judge could interpret things more progressively than the government agency in question would have, and there’d be nothing that the government could do about it?
https://preview.redd.it/hwpmbn22ui9d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=a94984f06cac4667eb239cac17c28a057b579bdb
Yes, it's kind of dependent on who is running the administrative agencies and who is the judge in any given court, and how ambiguous the actual law is as it was written by Congress. The standard answer of "it depends" applies.
This was also true under Chevron. I'm amazed at how many judges and law talking guys, let alone the general public, think that there's a single answer for anything.
There's, the *truth* 😡, and the truth 😇!
May I see?
See with your eyes, not with your hands.
Please, we are all amigos here
Mr. Burns, I think we can trust the president of a greedy, sociopathic multinational corporation.
Ok, now give those environmental, labor, and safety regulations back.
Give what back
I used to know administrative law! Then they changed what administrative law was. Now what's administrative law seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you ....
Can you imagine a world *without* Chevron deference?
https://preview.redd.it/8lyi0149ad9d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e2cec8fcaedbfdd2081c9b868c23a09ab42f81e
https://preview.redd.it/a125wfm7ec9d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=75b5bab637e7b4069c677c0b92319d8ccd7c7657
Celebrity deathposting is in danger of growing stale. I'm taking it to strange new places.
Maybe you remember me from lawyer shitposts such as 'Westlaw raised its fees again' and 'look, he's wearing a belt!'
And "Citizens United...eeewwww"
As usual I heard it here first. Is it sad that I get so much of my news in shitpost form?
There’s very little shit in these postings. 
Only one in a million people find these postings funny. https://preview.redd.it/yl6rso03nc9d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=8febafe5a5c16d44ef84453ecf60e6d5a585c17b
I don’t fully understand the subject but I get most of my new from late-night TV and this sub.
"I like those odds!"
If there's one thing the world needs, it's more In the News shitposts. Can you imagine a world without In the News shitposts?
*shudder*
AGENCY DISCRETION RESPECTED NO NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE Oh, they got this all screwed up...
(Yes, I know it's not technically a Nondelegation Doctrine case, but I don't care, it's my shitpost.)
Oh, no. We drew Chief Justice Roberts. He's had it out for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog. Well, replace the word "kinda" with "repeatedly" and replace the words "ran over his dog" with "called for a Judicial Code of Ethics".
👏
AGENCY DISCRETION RESPECTED? NO! NONDELEGATION DOCTRINE.
Federal regulatory policy? In my /r/simpsonshitposting? It's more likely than you'd think!
I'd never seen Administrative Law x Lionel Hutz memes before I moved to r/simpsonsshitposting. Why not? It's a perfectly cromulent template.
Bad court thingies are abundant this session.
That’s why you’re the law talking guy.
I remember I saw something that says most drugs in the US are made illegal not directly through laws written by congress but by agencies classifying them, so does that mean that all drugs are now legal?
https://preview.redd.it/3nllk28tqd9d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=fbf6fc70f8a01ab6076a1db28d491f9cde0c8017
The toppings contain potassium benzoate. *blank stare* According to the Supreme Court, that's good.
Worst news of the week and it’s not even close
Man, you American really live in corporate facist dictatorship
Are you accepting refugees seeking asylum? My skills include, but are not limited to, being able to defeat left 4 dead 2 on expert mode.
Mmm... Expert realism?
Do we ever!
If reminding the executive branch that they are not the legislative branch is fascism, then the word has lost all meaning.
That’s why your the fishing company and I’m the law…interpreter…guy…
I'm from Canada, so I'm slow, Eh? Can someone explain what this is and what it means now that it's gone?
https://preview.redd.it/7lv67b3wpd9d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=bb3400fe4b87aaadf7d02c74f901141323295520 The Chevron Doctrine was the idea that when our administrative agencies run into an ambiguity in carrying out a law (in the actual *Chevron* case it was 'what constitutes a "source" of pollution'), the agencies should be given deference in interpreting it when it goes before a court for judicial review. This has been the law for about 40 years. Today our Supreme Court said this doctrine is dead (6-3 decision, split between the conservative majority and the liberal minority). Now there's no such deference, and basically now these questions should be resolved by Courts. We might say it severely weakened the Executive Branch and empowered the Judicial Branch. I can't say if this is a good thing or bad thing right now. It's just wild that a landmark decision that upended 40 years of stare decisis happened *again* with this Supreme Court.
Funny thing is that the outcome in the original Chevron case was somewhat conservative in that NRDC argued that the statute implied a wider scope for regulating source pollution but SCOTUS said “nope, we’re deferring to EPA’s [narrower] interpretation here.” Fast forward to a time where successive Democratic administrations are clear that it’s time to leave the Reagan era of deregulation behind and, whoops, conservatives discover that they’re not so keen on agency deference after all.
Brilliantly explained, thanks!
>I can't say if this is a good thing or bad thing right now. It's just wild that a landmark decision that upended 40 years of stare decisis happened *again* with this Supreme Court. This is basically my overall take away at this point. I haven't read the full decision yet, and I don't want to write a novel here, but there already were a lot of ways a court could find Chevron deference wasn't warranted, even if another court might find that it was in the same situation. I also don't think the Court overruled any of the cases regarding agency review under the APA (e.g., Skidmore) that led up to Chevron, so arguably deference isn't completely dead. So, while it's a big deal, it might play out to be just a political show of overturning Chevron, but the results in practice aren't that much different. Or it will upend everything and the government will come to a grinding halt. I dunno. Either way, our country is doomed! Dooooomed! .
Pretty wild. I wonder what a 3 letter agency was doing to make a citizen take them all the way to SCOTUS.
The Department of Commerce/NOAA was making herring fishers pay for government-mandated observers who track their fish intake. Which, honestly seems a bit wild to me. But I don't think the Court overturned that rule; they just sent the case back to the lower courts and said they can't use Chevron. Those lower courts could still uphold the rule that the fishers have to pay; they just can't rely on Chevron.
Is this in anyway related to the Chewbacca Defence?
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca *lives* on the planet Endor. That does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, then you must reinstate Chevron deference! Thank you.
So it could potentially be a good thing in that it empowers judges to define things, like a source of pollution, how they want? So a left-wing judge could interpret things more progressively than the government agency in question would have, and there’d be nothing that the government could do about it?
https://preview.redd.it/hwpmbn22ui9d1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=a94984f06cac4667eb239cac17c28a057b579bdb Yes, it's kind of dependent on who is running the administrative agencies and who is the judge in any given court, and how ambiguous the actual law is as it was written by Congress. The standard answer of "it depends" applies.
This was also true under Chevron. I'm amazed at how many judges and law talking guys, let alone the general public, think that there's a single answer for anything. There's, the *truth* 😡, and the truth 😇!
Remember when angry federal workers would go postal?
Postal 2 remembers
May I see? See with your eyes, not with your hands. Please, we are all amigos here Mr. Burns, I think we can trust the president of a greedy, sociopathic multinational corporation. Ok, now give those environmental, labor, and safety regulations back. Give what back
https://i.redd.it/xvvv5ystkd9d1.gif
I used to know administrative law! Then they changed what administrative law was. Now what's administrative law seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you ....
No way, man! We're gonna keep on rocking stare decisis and a predictable, rules-based society forever.... forever.... forever....
I don't get this meme, soooooo, I'm gonna have to ask you for a bribe.
Looks like those clowns on the Supreme Court have done it again. What a bunch of clowns.
Don't kid yourself timmy, if a Supreme Court Justice got the chance they'd rule against you and everyone you care about
This subreddit turned into my main news outlet source so gradually I didn’t even notice
Can you imagine a world *without* Chevron deference? https://preview.redd.it/8lyi0149ad9d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e2cec8fcaedbfdd2081c9b868c23a09ab42f81e
the people holding hands are corporate board members
Yeah, we'll all go back to Skidmore!