The Beginning of the End for Chevron Deference?

[Paul_Chance]

Interprets ambiguous law. The executive branch consistently interprets law....always has. That is why immigration policies vary based on the administration.

Regulations have the force of law, even beyond the interpretation of ambiguous law. As the circuit court says above: The agency stands in the place of Congress and makes law.

 

[ll74]

Regulations have the force of law, even beyond the interpretation of ambiguous law. As the circuit court says above: The agency stands in the place of Congress and makes law.

The agency is part of the Executive branch.

 

[Chobham]

I disagree. Taking away power from agencies and allowing more policy created by courts is troublesome.

The Agencies HAVE NO POWER THAT CONGRESS DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY GRANT THEM!!!!! This is especially true when it comes to any penalties, financial or otherwise. When penalties are applied not specifically stated in the legislation then the agency is no longer 'interpreting' the law, they are creating law out of whole cloth. They knew it, they abused it, now it appears they're going to lose it and they brought it all on themselves.

 

[ll74]

The Agencies HAVE NO POWER THAT CONGRESS DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY GRANT THEM!!!!! This is especially true when it comes to any penalties, financial or otherwise. When penalties are applied not specifically stated in the legislation then the agency is no longer 'interpreting' the law, they are creating law out of whole cloth. They knew it, they abused it, now it appears they're going to lose it and they brought it all on themselves.

They are part of the Executive branch.

The courts gave them the power.

 

[Chobham]

They are part of the Executive branch.

The courts gave them the power.

And now the courts are going to take that power away because it was abused.

 

[ll74]

And now the courts are going to take that power away because it was abused.

It was not, but even if it were, a complete destruction of the mechanism the courts created decades ago is over the top as a response. There is absolutely no reason they couldn't address the issue more narrowly

 

[Chobham]

It was not, but even if it were, a complete destruction of the mechanism the courts created decades ago is over the top as a response. There is absolutely no reason they couldn't address the issue more narrowly

It most certainly was. The agency imposed on the plaintiff a fee not provided for in the legislation, that is abuse.

 

[ll74]

It most certainly was. The agency imposed on the plaintiff a fee not provided for in the legislation, that is abuse.

The legislation called for personnel to be present on the boat and provided no mechanism to pay for it. The legislation is at fault, not the agency

 

[Chobham]

Then it is up to the congress to correct the legislation, it is NOT in the agencies province to arbitrarily impose a fee.

 

[ll74]

Then it is up to the congress to correct the legislation, it is NOT in the agencies province to arbitrarily impose a fee.

As I said, there is a reason.deference was created. Ignoring that because you don't like gubment is stupid.