What the Supreme Court decision overturning Chevron deference means to you

  Рет қаралды 7,902

Federal News Network

Federal News Network

Ай бұрын

Read the transcript here: federalnewsnetwork.com/manage...
The Supreme Court last week overturned a 40 year precedent. In a case brought by New England fisherman, the court reversed what's been know as Chevron deference. In the 1984 case, the courts said judges should generally defer to federal agencies when rules they make are reasonable, and the enabling law was ambiguous. Last week's decision reverses that thinking. For what this may mean for agency rulemaking operations, the Federal Drive with Tom Temin turned to the chair of the Administrative Conference of the United States, Andy Fois.

Пікірлер: 28
@user-ix3zs1iz3t
@user-ix3zs1iz3t 27 күн бұрын
It was legalized extortion it took forty years to get it done.
@renereed3023
@renereed3023 27 күн бұрын
Unelected agencies empowering,& imposing fines, is unconstitutional.
@jkdaprynce
@jkdaprynce Ай бұрын
Hopefully this brings the price of all fish down a bit, not just herring.
@SkareMii
@SkareMii 16 күн бұрын
Ha!
@John-lj8rv
@John-lj8rv 26 күн бұрын
It means deprivation of rights under color of law comes to an end after forty long unconstitutional years.
@markhagerman3072
@markhagerman3072 Ай бұрын
This is a great decision! If an agency's leaders believe the agency needs additional authority, beyond that prescribed in existing law, the correct approach is for the agency to draft legislation providing for that, and send the draft to Congress along with a request for it to be passed.
@jakebrown6291
@jakebrown6291 22 күн бұрын
This is a good thing removing the Chevron Deference.
@DerpMcDerp101
@DerpMcDerp101 Ай бұрын
These courts have been able to turn purple into green for far to long.
@dennishowland7495
@dennishowland7495 27 күн бұрын
How about the wind farm in the ocean.that make no sense
@Sagora123
@Sagora123 28 күн бұрын
So, not at all worried about our water-ways being poisoned from fracking/chemicals, not concerned about regulations and standards for what’s deemed safe? You’re saying it’s good to not defer to a separate panel filled with experts when we do have ambiguous laws that ultimately affect our lives. So if your land becomes contaminated, you do not want to have a higher governing body to ensure companies like BP and Exxon do not skimp on regulations? Meaning, because the court says so, that’s it? No more oversight? I’m confused why people see this as a good thing. Power? Supreme Court justices just granted more power to the president recently. You can trust that they’ll do the same for the people?
@shelbystepp8462
@shelbystepp8462 28 күн бұрын
this is an incredibly underrated comment and spot on
@DonnysMagicalEar
@DonnysMagicalEar 27 күн бұрын
You fail to comprehend just how brain damaged the Trump cult is
@sshomesteaders1776
@sshomesteaders1776 26 күн бұрын
I hear you but respectively disagree ......the Congress needs to get off their butts and create common sense laws that will protect us......a 3 or 4 letter agency does NOT have the best interests of the people of this country, those 3 or 4 letter agencies only do what whatever the ruling parties want
@DonnysMagicalEar
@DonnysMagicalEar 26 күн бұрын
@@sshomesteaders1776 A. You sound like a Fox "news" junkie B. Do you trust Marjorie "The Hillbilly" Taylor Greene and Lauren "The prostitute" Boebert to create quality laws?
@mikefowler301
@mikefowler301 24 күн бұрын
Oh yeah full of experts my arse, How old are you and have you ever had to deal with bureaucrats? Well I have, If you think for one minute our world is going to be polluted because YOUR so called experts can't create laws/impose nasty arse fines then you need to move to europe. Who is the best expert for interpreting law? Fricken judges DUH!!!! not your so called experts, They need to get a law passed do it the same way the PEOPLE do, through congress. Jeebus you people think were gonna turn into china.
@jimtwodogs3084
@jimtwodogs3084 27 күн бұрын
The first nature of business is to feather your own nest.
@mikefowler301
@mikefowler301 24 күн бұрын
Ignorance must be bliss huh buddy? 1984 is when chevron came into being They took the power from the "Judicial" and gave it to the "executive" branch, They just now figured out this craps unconstitutional so they took it back. You need a brain.
How A Supreme Court Case Redefined Whiteness
12:44
PBS Origins
Рет қаралды 424 М.
Iron Chin ✅ Isaih made this look too easy
00:13
Power Slap
Рет қаралды 36 МЛН
I'm Excited To see If Kelly Can Meet This Challenge!
00:16
Mini Katana
Рет қаралды 21 МЛН
In Memory of Eleanor Owen
1:09
NAMI
Рет қаралды 1,5 М.
The Army moves to make spouses financial lives more viable
8:57
Federal News Network
Рет қаралды 47
Why is the Chevron Doctrine Still Controversial? [No. 86]
3:17
The Federalist Society
Рет қаралды 102 М.
Goodbye Chevron Doctrine: #ATF Furious!
22:55
CRPA TV
Рет қаралды 198 М.
A Conversation with the Justice Clarence Thomas
54:37
Library of Congress
Рет қаралды 630 М.
WATCH LIVE: Vance speaks at Glendale, AZ campaign rally
2:37:40
PBS NewsHour
Рет қаралды 29 М.
The 2023 Stein Lecture: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett
1:25:21
University of Minnesota Law School
Рет қаралды 33 М.
$1 vs $100,000 Slow Motion Camera!
0:44
Hafu Go
Рет қаралды 28 МЛН
Kumanda İle Bilgisayarı Yönetmek #shorts
0:29
Osman Kabadayı
Рет қаралды 2,4 МЛН
Проверил, как вам?
0:58
Коннор
Рет қаралды 257 М.