I find your show very thoughtful but your discussion of the Supreme Court case overruling the Chevron doctrine was ill-informed and off base. As a 40-year administrative lawyer, I believe your panel did not understand the importance of the 9-0 Chevron doctrine to separation of powers and judicial humility. I think you need to have a prac…
I find your show very thoughtful but your discussion of the Supreme Court case overruling the Chevron doctrine was ill-informed and off base. As a 40-year administrative lawyer, I believe your panel did not understand the importance of the 9-0 Chevron doctrine to separation of powers and judicial humility. I think you need to have a practicing lawyer familiar with the laws in question when discussing Supreme Court cases. Otherwise, it’s just uninformed, misleading commentary—just like most media commentary that I avoid in order to listen to your usually trenchant podcast.
As someone who wrote a dissertation on bureaucracy and worked for the federal bureaucracy and now works as a contractor to federal regulatory agencies, I think Chevron was an extreme doctrine that needed to be pared back.
As a purely constitutional matter, rulemaking authority is legislative authority, NOT administrative authority. It belongs to Congress, NOT to the President. The notion that regulatory agencies in the executive branch should have complete discretion in "interpreting" the law was too radical, and I'm glad it's gone.
It's hard to believe these justices who clawed back executive overreach in this case were the same justices who gave the president broad immunity. WTH? If they think the executive branch has too much discretion, presidential immunity isn't going to help!
You seem to be confusing two different kinds of expertise: substantive expertise and legal expertise. While I agree the courts should respect agencies' substantive expertise, there is zero reason to respect the agencies' legal expertise. Congress and the courts know more about the law than the agencies' experts. Moreover, agencies' interpretations of the law seem to change, depending on who the president is, even though the law itself has not changed. It seems to me they often try to pass off their political preferences as "expertise".
I find your show very thoughtful but your discussion of the Supreme Court case overruling the Chevron doctrine was ill-informed and off base. As a 40-year administrative lawyer, I believe your panel did not understand the importance of the 9-0 Chevron doctrine to separation of powers and judicial humility. I think you need to have a practicing lawyer familiar with the laws in question when discussing Supreme Court cases. Otherwise, it’s just uninformed, misleading commentary—just like most media commentary that I avoid in order to listen to your usually trenchant podcast.
As someone who wrote a dissertation on bureaucracy and worked for the federal bureaucracy and now works as a contractor to federal regulatory agencies, I think Chevron was an extreme doctrine that needed to be pared back.
As a purely constitutional matter, rulemaking authority is legislative authority, NOT administrative authority. It belongs to Congress, NOT to the President. The notion that regulatory agencies in the executive branch should have complete discretion in "interpreting" the law was too radical, and I'm glad it's gone.
It's hard to believe these justices who clawed back executive overreach in this case were the same justices who gave the president broad immunity. WTH? If they think the executive branch has too much discretion, presidential immunity isn't going to help!
My concern about the Chevron decision is that Congress people aren’t experts in their field as you probably were.
The fact that Gorsuch confused an air pollutant with laughing gas 5 times in his opinion tells me that regulations should be left to the bureaucrats.
You seem to be confusing two different kinds of expertise: substantive expertise and legal expertise. While I agree the courts should respect agencies' substantive expertise, there is zero reason to respect the agencies' legal expertise. Congress and the courts know more about the law than the agencies' experts. Moreover, agencies' interpretations of the law seem to change, depending on who the president is, even though the law itself has not changed. It seems to me they often try to pass off their political preferences as "expertise".
Thank you. I was thinking the same thing. There is a huge chance that that decision is going to be an unmitigated disaster.