The end of government as we know it? What happens if Chevron deference is overturned
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 01. 2024
- This week, the Supreme Court heard two cases that have the potential to upend our government function as we know it. If the Supreme Court overturns the 40-year-old doctrine known as Chevron deference, it would drastically shrink the power of federal agencies to regulate much of anything at all. Which means that private businesses and corporations may have more ability to challenge and violate regulations - like environmental regulations, food safety regulations, trading and financial regulations, among others. The knock-on effect of overturning Chevron is difficult to calculate, because it has the potential to impact nearly every facet of our government, and of our daily lives. Ali Velshi is joined by NYU Law Professor Melissa Murray to discuss.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/maddowblog
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/reidoutblog
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: link.msnbc.com/join/5ck/msnbc...
Find MSNBC on Facebook: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: / msnbc
#Government #SupremeCourt #Chevron
Corporations have too much power
Unelected beurocrats have too much power.
Until society decides to spend their money elsewhere.
welcome to the wonderful world of Citizens United!
[ note: the only way we might get out from under is to either buy some SC(R)OTUS justices or keep electing Democratic administrations until we have a more realistic SCOTUS ]
@@joshua-em1geSome corporations are unavoidable. I would love to have a different phone company as Tds is horrible, however it's the only local landline phone company available in my rural town. I have to work with them, or not have a landline because of their monopoly. And cell phone service is spotty so for safety reasons, I work with tds.
@@syrenstar9037All the more reason to nationalize telecommunications.
The ability for billionaires to buy laws from corrupt judges is sad time to take the money out of politics. No more lobbyists
What they are doing is the epitome of corporate fascism. And for this law to be scrapped would be a middle finger to the layperson.
This is abiding by the constitution, not billionaires buying laws. Your baseless accusation shows that you have no respect for the constitution and want an authoritarian big government.
Including Israel and Ukraine.
Or corrupt New York DAs that try to eliminate Trump by bringing lawsuits on him before the election. You dont have any outrage over that because the ends justify the means. My point is that Democrats and the media acting as if they are as clean as undriven snow is pretty laughable.
Ukraine I'm fine with & so should you ! Just NOT Israel. Netanyahu & Putin are the same kind of people,, GIVE ZELINSKI THE CREDIT HE DESERVES ! !@@philhiller-mn1gw
Man...this country is really turning into a dystopian society...
BidenObamics 2024🎉
... thanks to Joe Biden.
@@OlderG0dsWhy are you even commenting on a subject that requires thought?
@fieldthrasher it's called the 1st amendment, we do live in the United States of America..I think, maybe I made a wrong turn🤔
Dude go read project 2025 and come back and explain your Comment about how you think dystopia is even remotely happening . Hyperbole and dram dude. The gertiage foundation is what you should fear.
No. No ,No bureaucrats don't get to create laws!!
They are overstepping their authority!!!
Thank you for being a sane voice in a sea of morons.
They've been doing it all along
@@ebonychenevert-miller3322
Not the only one of the alphabet soup bureaucracies..
FBI, FDA, DEA, ATF, EPA, TSA, DHS,
FAA, NTSB,
They all work outside the laws that were passed by Congress!!
Congress will actually have to do their job!!!’ The horror of this is just unacceptable!!
@@Likeaworm no. congress will continue to not do their job and then the rest of us will get left dealing with corrupt corporations making bank by ripping off Americans. Theres a reason why corporations want this so bad.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
~James Madison, Federalist No. 51
Men, and corporate agents in particular, are as rapacious and malevolent as they have ever been.
Because someone had this brilliant idea to gather all those "rapacious and malevolent" people in America, so the rest of the planet won't suffer.
Where are you going to find these angels to organize society? -Milton Friedman
“I need to pay the Big Guy 10%.” - Hunter Biden
Profits to shareholders is the FIRST consideration with these corporations. Short term profits are more important then continued profits at a lower rate. Plenty have declared bankruptcy and have used laws to avoid any costs for clean up. Fracking is a current example. The Bush administration and VP Cheney ensured that corps weren't"burdened" with oversight.
Vote Blue.
"Men, and corporate agents in particular, are as rapacious and malevolent as they have ever been"
The difference being that one corporate agent has much, much more influence than one citizen.
It's like we have turned time back and now we are litigating the same things as 40 or 50 years ago.
The right wing desperately wants to return the nation to the 1940's and 1950's. I remember when my aunt could finally open a bank account in her name without a male co-signer.
@@Trump2PrisonOn34Counts You are so correct. For a long time the GOP has said they want to take America back. Yes, perhaps to president Hover, or the middle ages.
The right want a new ' interpretation '
We are! Just because conservatives now have the votes. It’s all political and it’s BS.
@@Trump2PrisonOn34Counts I am over the age of 70 and you are correct. I do remember a time where I grew up you could burn tires and such polluting the air, a woman couldn't buy a car/home on her own. She could not even get a credit card on her own. Our banks in town would allow a savings account for anyone, but not a checking account for a woman. Things were different and it wasn't that long ago. If a woman worked, she was only allowed certain positions, and pay was lower than a mans, even if she did more work. In the work place men did not hesitate to make inappropriate advances without repercussions, it would be the woman's fault. Times were different. Even what was expected to wear was different, it was ok to wear slacks at home, but if you went to the store you should wear a day dress, and it was always a must to wear a girdle. Going to Church you had to wear a hat and gloves, no matter the temps. It's amazing how our world has changed, but if there are no regulations or consequences then it's going to be free for all and Corporations will go wild.
The same government agencies that have allowed food companies to put additives in our food that are otherwise outlawed in other countries? Are those the “experts” you referring to?
This is the result of political meddling in Agency decisions.
high prices and wanton pollution from corporations is caused by LACK of regulation. @@combatepistemologist8382
Which is affected by interest groups lobbying the politics, so we're back to the same problem here
Do you imagine that things will improve if it is left to congress or the Supreme Court to determine what additives those agencies are allowed to regulate?
well, given that there is at least SOME in both of those bodies that understand and listen to science, yes.@@JLT0087
Reasonable regulations are not the issue. Velshi foolishly imagines that the "experts" can be trusted to make good regulations, even though their bosses are political appointees. Thus, those so-called experts are directly subject to political influence. Their regulations whipsaw from one extreme to another based on the administration in power. Velshi ignores such actual dangers. We know they happen, and we need to prevent them. K Street and govt employees are invested in moving back and forth from govt to private corporations. Congress doesn't do its job. That's the problem.
Here's a thought. How about we have agencies run by subject matter experts instead of political appointees or judges. Political appointees do whatever their administration wants. As for judges, let's look at their lack of medical knowledge while judges/justices make medical decisions instead of doctors (you know the folks who actually went to medical school).
I have never known one "expert " who wasn't a dumb as dirt narcissist!
What the supreme court threw out was the ability of the deep administrative state to control innovation, small business and entrepreneurialism.
Ask the people in OH about unregulated rail cars and toxic spills! Thousands of home owners have now lost all of their land value, and are living in what is essentially a toxic waste dump. If this law changes (so corporations can pocket more profit), this country will be a very dangerous place to live.
Transportation is regulated
Regulations are just taxes. Lets get that straight.
Who cares they voted for Trump who rolled back regulations that would have stopped this!
@@RalphieMaysGhostregulations prevent monopolies, price gouging, corporations putting out unsafe products. Maybe you would prefer more lead in your water, or unsafe preservatives in your food, or no safety regulations on your cars? You don't have a clue
@@muchoed5119not as well as it was thanks to Trump
This is why America can't have nice things.
But currently living better than you.
@@bondjovi4595 Only in the Trumpslave World of the Imagination. Not in the real world, however.
@@bondjovi4595 Have you ever set foot outside your own county?
@@bondjovi4595 HAHAHAHAHA!!! Your country is a third world crap pile.
@bondjovi4595, um, have you ever set foot in Europe?
If a corporation spends X amount of dollars to comply with regulations and the consumer price of their product is Y, does anyone actually believe that if the regulations are removed, reducing the cost of X, that corporations will reduce the price of Y? It will just make things less safe while increasing the profits for the corporation.
No
First of all, the Obama admin over regulated the industry so badly manufacturing couldn't afford to do business here anymore. That's why nearly everything you buy is made over seas. Trump was doing away with that, but then Brandon undid that.
Secondly, if a company can make Y in Asia for pennies on the dollar compared to making it here, they are going to do it. The Asian company will pollute 10 times more than the American company would ever pollute, even under the least amount of EPA regulations. Our regulations will never be removed, just brought to a reasonable level so companies can do business. The way Obama had them set, they just make no sense and cost too much to comply with.
Yes, thats how the free market works. You see certain companies will cut prices to sell at a lower price than their competition so they sell more products, the competition then will cut prices to compete and they will go back and forth until the correct price of the good or service is determined by the customer willingness to purchase the good and the companies ability to profit.
God sycophants are so stupid. But you know if socialists understood economics they wouldnt be socialists.
It's not about price. It's about unelected bureaucrats being able to come in and take your property because of laws they made.
@charliewaters5289 It is about price. The unelected bureaucrat isn't who is taking your property. It is politicians, judges/justices, and the lobbyists for the rich/corporations that take your money/property. It is by new laws that they create/write or the creative interpretation of the law (see corporations are people BS) that takes your property/money.
I’m in final year of law school and I can say that was actually a really good explanation of the administrative state. Whether they have too much power is another argument. Keep in mind that there is no real representation at all in these agencies, they are free to enact what basically amount to laws without the people ever voting on it. That is the issue, ignore the rhetoric ab corporations.
My son and grandchildren will be working in unsafe conditions while the industry or owners will traipse in the south of France with the extra money they pocketed on cutting safety! I can not take anymore with this Supreme Court.
I’n 67 and I am right there with you!
@@pandabearmycat5206The last line of your post should read “The only thing that matters is Trump.” He is our republicans deity. The only way to salvation is through him. 🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺MAGA🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺
@@pandabearmycat5206 Moments ago I rolled over and whispered in my sibling Gloria Jean’s ear what you posted and she was appalled. Gloria Jean is smart, beautiful, voluptuous and knows 💯 who her soon to be re-elected republicans savior is. Matter of fact, when the sun comes up we plan on showing the hundreds of Trump supporters, here at the mobile home park where we live, your comments. You better get right before it’s too late because Trump forbid you don’t.🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺MAGA🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺
@@NeilHoward-kp2gc🤔I had to read it twice …thanks for laugh.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@pandabearmycat5206
You and the death cult you belong to are strange....
Hey the guys that own the new lead smelter down the street told us lead smelters are totally safe.
Yep, I drink lead everyday!
Live in China? 🤔
But the government bureaucrats decided to shakedown the industry and congress who make laws do nothing but run for office.
@@jacobbaran
Uh huh. 🙄
Ok goober. 🤣
@@jacobbaran Only if the GOP has its way.
The supreme court needs reforms and term limits.
Government agencies are run by experts! Since when?
The same "experts" that tried pushing experimental clot shots on the people.
They're usually not that competent, no. But courts have far less expertise, so... "guy who's not that good at his job" tends to be a better choice than "guy in a black dress who knows nothing about the subject and just does what the people paying him bribes tell him to do".
@@BigSlimyBloband infinitely better than "guy who makes money doing the opposite of his job at everyone's expense" ie GOP admin "experts" the EPA is anti environment, the education lady is anti-education, etc
@@rickwrites2612 This is true. The previous president made the worst possible picks, putting a polluter in charge of protecting people from pollution and a private school billionaire in charge of public education, and named corrupt judges to the Supreme Court. If we're being realistic, the USA has already fallen to corruption.
Still, there is no reason to actively hasten the country's descent into a dystopia. One side is still far, far worse than the other.
@twolaneassfault - Please remove your head from QAnus!
Who regulates the regulators? Regulation is good but unelected regulators with broad powers seems very questionable to me.
Yeah, didn’t reduction in railroad regulations result in a couple of toxic accidents? Just asking
Way more than a couple unfortunately. It's fully out of hand at this point.
That was back in 2017.
That was trump.
no
NOPE. Try researching. You were spoon fed a lie and you still believe it.
Can your prove that?
These are the same agencies that burned the forest. Not a little at a time but thousands of acres all once.
How many large foreign owned American companies will benefit from deregulation? China and Brazil control most of our meat industry. Saudi Arabia controls a large portion of our oil refinery industry. China owns many of our corporations. Reversal of Chevron Deference gives partial control of our economy to foreign players?
Over regulation is what pushed those industries into foreign hands. Americans are the ones who benefit from deregulation.
You just want a big authoritarian government to let the foreign players control our economy.
that was democrats that allowed forien companies on american soil.
@@invalidaccount2315 No...that was not Democrats...try again...
@@invalidaccount2315that is not true. Foreign companies have been welcomed by both parties. Mitch McConnell accepted a Russian Ukrainian company into his state as many other Republicans have.
Our land your land is the United States United States made up of citizens not corporations corporations have no right to decide what our environment should be for that how healthy we should live our lives this should be protected by our government and should not be upended by private interest
My land is my land and no one has authority of it but me.
Not all bureaucracies are led by experts. Some of these people are complete idiots in their fields, but are really good at doing what their masters tell them.
This is the big problem: these agencies flip flopping on what is legal and what isn't, strictly depending on who sits in the White House.
Yes I noticed when Republicans were in more dangerous chemicals and contaminates were allowed higher like asbestos and other chemicals. The amounts would be adjusted UP.
So the answer is to do away with them completely? I think there’s a better answer than that .
@@blueberry-ri7eb🐎💩. You noticed what the dnc lied to you about. Nothing more.
Then the problem is hiring standards and scrutiny, not bureaucracies themselves. What else is going to carry out the instructions of the President, Congress, etc? This idea of "no government in my my life" is just a libertarian prepper fantasy.
@@filrabat1965 and isn’t that proof of bureaucracy failure? Look at this child sniffer and it’s “hiring.” They’re more concerned with “equity” and DEI 🐎💩, than they are qualifications.
The problem is regulations are made by people that are not elected or accountable. Regulations are usually made by whoever is in political power.
they are appointed and accountable to the elected people. in this specific regard they are functionally similar to the supreme court. if the people who make the regulations do something you dont like, complain to your relevant congressperson. in this regard they are more accountable than the supreme court.
@@joshmerchant8737 😂😂😂 what world are you living in
This administration has abused it's power through the agencies so much that stripping Chevron has to happen. If Congress has not passed a bill the unelected agency under the direction of the President should not be able to enforce a "rule" that they "made up". The agencies are in executive overreach. The executive branch can only ENFORCE the LAWS that Congress PASSES.
The agencies are not staffed by experts, they are staffed by people beholden to the President and his/her AGENDA.
The regulations are made by professionals in the field which must be evaluated and passed. They ate intended to protect the nation at large. This position you hold completely ignore that the people are indeed appijt3d but the laws are decided by elected persons.
No! That's why chev def must be overturned. Reg agencies are overstepping without accountability.
Regulations are bad, unless it's to stop women getting healthcare or stops children learning that slavery is bad.
Equating abortion with healthcare is evil. And no one is trying to stop children from learning about slavery. They are trying to stop leftists from using history to install a Marxist regime. One post, two lies. Congrats....
Nonsense. Women have access to healthcare and children learn that slavery is bad.
We don't need regulations for these things. The government isn't going to make things all better.
@@muchoed5119 no one expects the government to make everything better.. that doesnt change that we expect them to do the basic jobs they are hired to do - which is not what republicans are doing..
The left calls killing kids "Healthcare"
The left celebrates their president child trafficker by not calling it slavery.
@@NorebWRONG. Chevron Deference allows the authoritarian over-reach of the federal government. It must END!
"Federal agencies are run by experts" . . . 😂😂😂😂😂😂.
Remember when the director of the ATF was questioned by congress? Well, if you are not an expert in alcohol and you are not an expert in tobacco, nor an expert in firearms, then are you an expert in explosives?… dude knows nothing about anything yet he’s the director of the ATF!
The problem is, agencies are not doing their work, not completely, nor correctly.
When executive agencies overstep, then deference needs to curtailed. Only Congress has the power to pass laws. If there is no statute, then there should be no regulation.
Wise words.
I think we need regulations, these agencies, but we also need to make sure there is not corruption. If we don't have these regulations/agencies, corporations would go crazy, we need oversite by professionals.
But what happens when those same Government regulators become corrupt?
The issue at hand in this case is, environmentalists have taken over this department and are desperately trying to eliminate the fishing industry, the same way they eliminated the timber industry in the northwest, and many small towns in the northwest have never recovered, even after 30 years, living in the northwest, we see the damage caused by decisions made in DC, there needs to be a balance, but DC doesn't see balance, they see environmentalists money for their campaigns!!
Well the counter to that is that most regulating agencies are captured by the business sectors they are in charge of regulating... as well as regulators freely moving between business and the regulating organisations.
Watch the documentary about the meat slaughterhouses, before regulations, if you want an eye opener
I mean, sure, people got sick and died. But the slaughterhouse owners made more money, and isn't that what really matters here?
1:44 "agencies determines LAWS" You just make the case to withdraw Chevron. The Constitutuon says CONGRESS creates laws...
This is what the new president for Argentina is getting rid of.
Yeah we saw how it was the regulations that was holding the country back … said no one ever 😂
I’m old enough to remember when these justices all agreed on the sanctity of Stare Decisis.
Stare Decisis can not circumvent the constitution. Did you see anything in the 14th amendment that approves abortion? Neither did the Supreme Court.
Agreeing with precedent and agreeing constitution are two separate things
You never understood that a SCOTUS interpretation is not meant to be fixed forever.
If this were the case, we still would hold that "blacks are separate but equal".
See, Stare Decisis is a common law doctrine. The interpretation of the Constitution is not bound by common law principles.
@@andy99ish The SCOTUS interpretation is not fixed, you're right. What is fixed is the language of the constitution. Did you see anything in the 14th amendment that would allow you to accuse a slave of insurrection, and string them up in the courtyard without due process?
@@andy99ish In fact do you see anything in the 14th concerned about slaves ability to have an abortion. I didn't think so!
The public has to foot all sorts of financial impositions placed upon them by government... why not corporations?
Exactly
Regulations affect individuals as well!
@@geoffsmith82 That's what I meant by what I posted.
@@robertalker652 Well... I meant that this would also affect the impositions that the government can place on individuals. Often all the regulations make it impossible for individuals and small businesses to compete with larger businesses because large businesses can absorb the costs and employ individuals to deal with complying with the regulations. Individuals and small businesses can't do this and it ends up making things more complicated for them to do what they want to do.
@@geoffsmith82 Ah, I see your point now and agree. The playing field is tailored for big business, and as for the rest, well, you know.
She said “imagine someone like Majorie Taylor Greene trying to decide how to regulate particulate matter” 😂😂😂
Imagine Biden! LOL! Wait! NVM!...
it was a cute script they had her read ... cable news is soo predictable 🤮
I can't think of a politician worthy of regulating parking.
Imagine Nancy Pelosi??? Never mind!!!
Yeah a person elected to pass laws…..NOT a epa non elected dictator
I’m tired of the unelected bureaucrats making the laws
Why?
@@omegabat39 Because the average Joe doesn't have any input. And simply because they stayed in their position and advanced, doesn't make them an expert. And they answer to nobody. Basically they have no restraint.
@@omegabat39because that’s not how the system is supposed to work. Why would you want unelected bureaucrats making laws?
@spartancrown it is. Called checks and balances. I know what you are doing and it's sad lolz.
@@omegabat39 typical Democrat response when you have no clue
Thank you both so.much for shedding light on this incredibly critical issue! Most people probably have no clue about these matters and just how deep and broad the implications could be! Very scary, given the players of the day.
yes, freedom is scary, get used to it.
These idiots in the video are presenting a very biased view of chevron deference. Chevron deference is one of the biggest problems in our bloated democratic led government
WE THE PEOPLE give the government power. It is not the governments role to RULE THE PEOPLE.
Stop giving your rights away.
@@user-wz8gj4mc4qThis is about regulation. Why should judges with no expertise outside of the law be in charge or regulating food safety, environmental standards, pharmaceutical approvals, aircraft safety policies and enforcement, etc.?
Maybe congress can quit writing ambiguous legislation. The era of "We have to pass it to know what is in it" is over. Just ask Pelosi.
Yes! Congress is designed to be gridlocked and inefficient to make onerous and unpopular laws difficult to enact. Handing legislative and judicial power to the executive branch just runs roughshod over checks and balances.
If anything the cdc should prove the "experts" serve their pockets over the facts
These agencies are run by ideologues-not experts. The director of the ATF doesn’t know a machine gun from a shoelace and he is trying to violate our 2nd amendment rights.
So, we have to pay for healthcare, vehicle and building inspection, licencing, permits.
But industries don't like paying.
End of sentence.
Bring this to so called Morgan and Morgan. Lol
Exactly. Erh!!
The secret is we shouldnt have to pay for those.
Power to the people and not the bureaucrats
WE the People have to wake up NOW!!!!
Oh that would be so sad if unaccountable government bureaucrats couldn’t ruin people’s lives.
Like the lifetime-appointed scotus justices that the people had no say in electing? I agree. They've eiined enough of our rights recently.
@@gingerredshoes If you have a problem with that, take it up with the founders of the country. Which unelected government job do you hold?
@@gingerredshoes Except the judiciary naturally checks itself and balances out.
Whereas executive agencies are completely unchecked in their interpretation and application of regulations.
Also, judiciary has lifetime seats so they dont need to worry about re election.
Basically if scotus allows it. Companies will be allowed to pollute and allow people to die without any consequences.
well its a conservative scotus so say bye to everything that makes sense... Conservatives are some of the worse people on the planet... its all over...
My concern is much worse:
This is going to lead to "Line-Item Veto" power....
Court Held Line Item Veto Power!
People panic when a President or Prime Minister wants the ability to selectively remove individual lines of Legislation... but think it is grand to give that power to every Judge?
Utter nonsense. It would simply require agencies to stay within the constraints established by congress.
@@brentharrington9235 The congress has decided these agencies will make necessary, appropriate and reasonable regulations, based on the knowledge of people who have expertise in these areas. Corporations want themselves to be the sole arbiter on what is necessary, appropriate and reasonable, and they are biased in their own favor instead of the public good.
@@combatepistemologist8382 Congress doesn't have the right to do that. No where in the constitution does it say that "Congress shall when feeling overwhelmed with their job, create entire agencies to create laws without oversight or supervision."
Both cooperations and unelected agencies, need to be held accountable to the people.
Chevron deference doesn't give corporations more power, it simply returns the responsibility of regulation back to our representatives where it is supposed to be.
If the Federal Government removes a regulation that, would have, saved a life, the Federal Government is Financially responsible for the the loss of life.
Well that's a legal matter that would most likely end up before the Supreme Court and how do you think this Supreme Court would rule on that? Especially if there was a republican in the White House
The federal government has no obligation to protect your life, it just can’t actively deprive it.
Oops, guess that gets rid of abortion bans.
@@chavvy9074 not exactly. Corporations don't control abortion rights, the courts do evidently, and now they're trying to control everything else too
@@chavvy9074
Goober.
There's no abortion ban
at the Federal level.
0:58 this isn’t true. Agencies are lead by appointees, however the experts non political appointees everyday Americans (experts) are the ones who have regulatory authority.
Civil servants are everyday taxpayers who are vetted via the FBI, who have the education and experience to help ensure that the American people are taken care of.
Stop all of the crazy regulations
Agencies should NOT have authority to create rules period
So just allow dumping in lakes, or situations like the rail cars in Ohio etc?
Who said that????
@@Supreme36074
chevron deference existed during all the past environmental "atrocities" of the last 40 years. If your agencies were so good to regulate those companies; why did it happen still?
Right the B.O.P. makes there on Rules and they shouldnt
In the 1990's the American software industry, which is currently at the heart of pretty much all of American business, was imperiled by an appellate court which ruled, because they truly were this clueless, that loading software from disk into RAM to run the program was a violation of copyright and not covered by existing EULA's. It took Congress passing what amounted to emergency legislation to amend the copyright act to prevent effectively all software development being forced to move out of the country.
That's the sort of idiocy we can expect if Chevron is overturned.
Never underestimate the power of ignorance. It got Trump elected.
Ofcoarse with Chevron in place millions of otherwise law abiding people would become felons overnight simply because of a piece of velcro on the back of their pistols and administration change.
Only congress should have the power to make laws.
Chevron was in effect when this happened. So your example actually proves the opposite of what you intended.
And there has been plenty of idiocy since Chevron was adopted. Overturning it will just change which idiocy stays and which goes.
It appears that my comment was deleted. That's CZcams for yall🤡
as of 2024 there are 0 software jobs in america plenty for india devs that wanna work for american companies
We need regulations. Companies WILL cut corners to cut costs and maximize profits. They do not care about our health or the environment. If companies did the right thing, we wouldn’t have needed regulations in the first place.
100%. Lack of regulations is why prices are currently so high. Corporate greed.
Yes and no, the regulations should come from individuals that do not directly benefit from said regulations
Then you can figure out a way to have elected people make the regulations. We can't have this system we have now. If you think the regulations we have now weren't already created by the corporations, then you are extremely ignorant.
If Chevron deference is booted, who can trust any company? It has always been caveat emptor in the US, whereas in Europe companies must prove their products are safe for consumption or use before making them available for sale. Numerous American products are banned in Europe as a result. I prefer government intervention than becoming a corporate victim.
Not necessarily. Most of US law is quite clear. It's only when the law is ambiguous that a problem will arise.
If the court finds that Congress did not give the agency the power to do what it's trying to do, then the agency can go back to Congress and ask them to write their desired regulatory power into statute.
This hapepened in the aftermath of the FAA unilaterly implementing a drone registration requirement without the vesting of such authority in the agency by Congress. The case is Taylor v Huerta. Congress later changed the statute and gave the FAA the power to require drone users to register themselves with the FAA and take a safety course before flying.
Chemicals of poison in food equal future benefits for health care and pharmaceutical. Money versus care for humanity. This is how the story goes.
You clearly don't understand how Chevron Deference works
The possibility of law-making authority being given back to Congress? One can only hope...
No, if regulatory boards empowered by congress no longer have power, to regulate everything will be litigated through the courts. 17K decisions made by regulation are now up for grabs in the courts where unelected judges decide whether you get to breathe clean air or not.
I think these “experts” should come up with a plan, then pitch it to Congress. Then their ideas will be law and not “regulatory guidelines.” Then we will have each legislator’s name and opinion on each one. Might help people vote in an informed way.
Congress, famously able to do things
In the end it comes down to values. Deregulation of parts of the FAA allowed Boeing to cut corners, aircraft crashed, people were killed and Airbus is now King of the heap.
FAA deregulation was passed by congress. This has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
@@NoName-tq9fi Deregulation has everything to do with this case.
I don’t expect proper law interpretation from scotus anymore. Keep it up and they will find themselves banished to the dark corners of jurisprudential insignificance, where no one will abide their decisions.
Yep. A Constitutional crisis created through their corruption, arrogance, and narcissism. The only question is who'll have the guts and courage to say "no mas" and do what they need to do. It won't be Biden as he's a corrupted institutionalist who'll protect the institution over the needs of the people. He's in too deep. Can you say Merrick Garland? But somewhere a Dem is being born or ready to rise in power who will challenge the misery and destruction these 6 radicalized unelected judges are about to cause. One can only hope.
Your not getting your perfered decisions anymore so you simply say they're corrupted.
@@DYLAN102001 I would love nothing more than for you to be right about that. The bribery part is disturbing.
@@bwmcelya You mean like when Biden got all that money from Chinise officials?
@@bwmcelya
Yeah, nothing rising to the level of bribery has even been alleged against anyone on the Supreme Court. So try again.
Most federal agencies have way to much power this is a good thing. Regulation doesn't always mean safe. They don't tell you that it will also make it harder for some of theese federal agencies to take away some of your rights.
What regulations? Every brand of baby food has 60x the minimum allowed heavy metals, and the FDA has done nothing..? What happens when these federal agencies refuse to do their jobs anyways? Who regulates that?
The fda does everything according to money. It's why stevia isn't approved.
actually- the free and impartial media and thereby, the public. But all the media is owned by rich guys, now, so...
Government as we know it has to change.
Regulatory agencies should not be able to create laws.
I Cant imagine MTG having any expertise on literally anything at all.
Keep listening to those "experts."
Federal agencies are run by “experts”. 😂😂😂
Get rid of Chevron deference. It's time for Congress to make the laws again, not unelected bureaucrats. Of course, MSNPC wants to fearmonger around the death of this unconstitutional approach to lawmaking.
Finance your own regulatory agencies. Thats like having to pay police to search my own car for marijuana.
Congress is the lawmaking body. Agencies are part of the executive branch. The executive branch should not be making laws. It has been a side-step around due process as there is no mechanism in place for challenging it. If the congress wants to regulate, they should seek out the advice of experts for input into the laws. Agencies are for enforcement, not lawmaking. That is our separation of powers. That is what is being violated here. In the past, Congress has evaded their responsibility and let the executive branch arbitrarily make the laws without a vote. This needs to stop.
Well said.
Lol, congress is a corporate bought mess, just look at the house, and if you expect them to decide details in regulations nothing will happen and corporations will destroy everything. But hey, profits right?
No regulation should be promulgated without Congress voting on it. They need to actually work in Washington.
That is what happened in the aftermath of Taylor v Huerta (the drone registration case).
The FAA acted unilaterally in 2015, making drone registration compulsory as a condition of flying in the USA. The regulation was struck down because Congress didn't give the FAA the power to do that. Later, the FAA lobbied the Congress to write its regulation into statute and, upon reauthorization of the FAA, the Congress did just that and wrote the FAA's desired regulation of drones into statute.
That's how it's supposed to work.
Also worth noting. The judge who wrote the majority opinion in the Taylor v Huerta case is now on the Supreme Court.
Anything that shrinks this over bloated government is a step in the right direction
Judges should not be yielding their authority to agencies. Unelected bureaucrats should not be allowed to make these kinds of decisions.
Yeah, unelected judges with no subject matter experience should do it. Makes sense.
These sly moves toward corporate plutocracy fly under most people's radar.
Yeah people won't feel the effects for years and then it'll be years longer before anything is actually done.
This about corporations relinquishing public accountability and liability. While expanding their profit margin. Public health and safety be damned.
That's been the plan, all along.
No, it's not, it's about unelected zealots deciding what they want the unwashed mass are allowed to do. Like the EPA deciding that CO2 is bad and must be regulated.
Corporations are accountable.
@@5rings16 How?
@@5rings16 Just barely, even after being sued for damages. The settlements are usually a pittance compared to the amount they make during any given year.
The end of unelected bureaucrats as we know it. There, I fixed the title for you!
Strange how these newscasters, and liberals generally, have such inherent trust in government, when throughout all human history, government has rightly been been distrusted.
Time to expand the SCOTUS. This court is corrupted
Nahh , we good
Yes. We need 60 actual Democrats in the Senate and control of both the House and White House to do that. Vote BLUE. We also need more states signing onto The National Popular Vote Compact. Per Robert Reich, it is a legal agreement among participating states to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Once enough states opt in to add up to 270 electoral votes, the Electoral College becomes irrelevant - and we’re already up to 205!
We only need 5 to 6 more states to reach the magic number of 270. Will you make a donation to help spread the word, get the truth out, and end the undemocratic Electoral College system before the 2024 presidential election?
@@stoppin2look So you want a permanent leftist government? Fun fact: there have been many leftist governments throughout history, and EVERY one of them has resulted in poverty and repression for it's citizens. Why would you wish that for us?
@@stoppin2look...if you don't want diversity.
We do need to expand the courts….with ultra conservatives.
Bolts on airplanes, for example. Would be nice if someone else than Boeing controlled if they have been installed before the doors come off in mid air.
It’s called government overreach…plain and simple…
If those ideas are that good ...there should be no problem getting Congress to pass them. Would you be OK if the ATF decided fully automatic guns were legal?
It has been overturned🤦🏾♂️
Add more judges to SCOTUS who are Not corrupt tools.
And remove the ones that don’t know the Bill of Rights.
@@renenowickiHow about you name a few since you seem to know….
They know the Bill of rights. They're getting paid off to rule without it 😮
Looking for rubber stamp for Democrats! Your not asking for constitutional interpretation.
Under the social contract the government is put in place to protect your rights and freedoms under the constitution, not to manage every aspect of your life. The chevron deference creates an overly regulatory government costing the citizenry more, both in the cost of government and the cost of the goods being regulated. This leads to the crushing of smaller businesses that don't have the capital to take on the government. If the regulations were so great, then we'd have good food and clean water. Instead we have over processed food full of chemicals and no nutrients, and recycled waste water full of chemicals. Finally, this will force the congress to write more specific laws instead of thousands of vague ways to regulate society, and moving the executive branch back to enacting the laws instead of determining them.
This gives non elected bureaucrats to much power
Limit Government involvement in the lives of individuals. It’s WAY past time!
💯💯💯💯
Less private sector. More government now!
What happens? Unelected bureaucrats will need to find a new job, and congress will have to pass unambiguous legislation.
I think US trade will suffer if regulations are removed, to the EU in particular but to other countries too. European consumers are already unhappy with poor regulations on GMO products from USA and this would probably lead to import bans on goods in many sectors from the US.
Not exactly. Companies in the USA would still have a desire to export to the UK and EU. They would still follow all EU and UK laws to get their products imported there.
The FDA and USDA approved synthetically cultivated chicken "meat” and fanken-fish GMO nonsense.
@@FinalLugiaGuardian They would but if the EU doesn't trust a sector generally then they tend to favor banning.. it has already been suggested for some products.
@@jonathonmerrell9554 Yes, sometimes the US lobbying works but the voters don't like it, so it's in uphill battle for the US to convince the EU
End of government? Not at all. The Constitution places the power and responsibility for making laws Darrell in the legislative branch. That's Congress, for you reporters. The unelected bureaucrats in those federal agencies are part of the executive. They don't get to just make up new laws.
And just because we've done it that way for a few decades doesn't make it right. (See also, Dred Scott and "separate but equal".)
Part of the problem is today's agencies became activist tools rather than actually regulating (ie: EPAs EV and appliance mandates ) would have SCOTUS or Congress to act against them.
Great News! We need smaller Government. These agencies have been using Chevron to overreach.
This would also have the effect of clogging federal courts with petty corporate regulation challenges in all districts, so much so that issues of civil rights, correcting harms done by large corporations, and matters of social legal importance would be delayed or outright denied due to the court calendar, not to mention the number of challenges that would seek SCOTUS attention and therefore SCOTUS time, which would then result in more shadow docket decisions.
Correcting GOVERNMENT harm caused to the people and business✅
Then pass a clear and unambiguous LAW like the forefathers intended.
This is a great thing! Forces congress to actually create laws instead of pointing the finger at th executive branch so they can keep their payroll.
The Supreme Court And Congress are not experts on nuclear power, chemical poisons, bacterial contamination, and ppm of deadly chemicals in air and water. It would take them years to decide and Americans will die.
Congress and senate (as well as electoral college) disproportionately represent areas with low population and education, ie right wing. They like this, and if their constituents don't they wont vote them out because they just rile them up about immigrants and gays.
Problem is, modern day congressmen know very little about that which they write law. Proven time and time again. However, the fact that these unelected beauricrats in these agencies can essentially write law with no one checking them is a crime to the American people no matter how you lean politically. It allows whichever political party is in control to push their agenda behind the scenes without having to pass any actual laws.
Remember when a Corporation business was allowed to be the same as a person, a human being.
I wonder if many remember that, which is still in place.
It isn't was, past tense, actually.
It still is.
If everything that they are worrying about will reduce and remove regulations, maybe Congress should ACTUALLY start making laws rather than telling the Exec Branch that their agencies aren’t doing their job. Our elected officials make laws, not the fools who are paid by companies in these stupid bureaus.
Anyone who tells us ‘Government agencies are ran by experts.” has no clue what he is talking about!
Thanks to Trump rolling back railroad regulations, there have been serious deadly railray accidents since. You Trump supporters are dumbest of the dumb if you think their shouldn’t be regulations. We will all be walking around with hazmat suits on if GOP get their way by deregulating everything 🙄
Less government in our lives the better our lives will be.
💯🎉💯🎉💯
Over 90% of government is not needed. Or allowed by the Constitution.
He lost me at “Federal agencies are run by experts.”
Less gov in our personal lives, more gov in corporations.
As a semi truck driver, I don't have to pay the Dot directly for their inspections or inspectors. Instead, I pay indirectly through federal and state taxes. Don't see why the fishing agency is charging these Fishman directly for their inspections. That said, the fishing agency ought to retain the power to charge fishers fines and penalties to enforce their regulations.
If you build a house or building you need a permit and you have to pay the building department for that. Not sure why some companies should get to sidestep that. This is just the costs of doing business.
When he puts the org chart on the screen all I can see is a bloated federal government.
It will return government back to the "limited form of government" that the Founding fathers wanted. Read James Madison's 1792 Cod Fishery bill. He said that it was "... not the roll of government to be benevolent toward people, from the American treasury and would violate the limited form of government that we created" (paraphrasing). In this Cod Fishery bill, they were trying to pass a bill to "help" immigrants from Haiti.
💯♥️🇺🇸
There where two sects of the founding fathers, the federalists and anti-federalists, one wanted the limited government you speak, but the other wanted a stronger more capable government. Your premise denies/ignores the very existence of about half of the founding fathers. The more important thing to know about this, is that they COMPROMISED, the constitution gave a fair bit of power to congress, and the bill of rights put firm limits on that power.
The power in regulation wouldn't actually change anyways; it would still be the same amount of congressional power. New regulations would still apply with the same authority, existing ones would likely be set more firmly. This potential overturn would just require congresspersons spend more TIME on regulations, being more specific, giving more direct orders, etc etc. The bureaucracy would get slower and more inefficient than it is already.
If you want that, that's fine, it would reduce regulation enforcement a bit. But it wouldn't change the power or form of congress, or return it to some previous form.
@@joshmerchant8737 The Federalists accepted the Anti-federalists Bill of Rights, because they knew that that was the only way that the states would ratify the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court in the 1890s agreed with what I said. They struck down various taxes then. That is why the Liberals rammed through the 16th Amendment after SCOTUS said no to their welfare state in the 1890s.
Most new regulations are only written after blood has been spilled, how much more blood will be spilled tossing them out the window.
Did We the People vote for this?! And where did all these 3-letter agencies come from?! Btw: regulations Are Not Laws!
and who says these people in the three letter agencies are experts? why do they get to make up rules and regulations without even a thought of listening to voters? ask yourself, who is funding this message?
To answer her question, Congress "should " be the ones to make these decisions, not the EPA, Congress is our Representatives, they represent the people, they are supposed to vote they way their constitutes want them to vote, we are after all a Constitutional Republic, which is a representative form of Government, we are not an authoritarian style Government where the department heads make laws, the Congress makes laws, the Executive enforces the law and the Supreme Court decides if those laws are Constitutional!!
Yea and they delegated it to federal agencies what are you confused about.
thank you for explaining that too these 🐑
@rickwrites2612 I don't care who delegated anything to these organizations, the Constitution does not state that laws can be made by organizations delegated by Congress, it states that Congress has the sole power to make laws...period..
If I had the money i would move my family and I to one of the Nordic countries because if these crazy libertarians get control then this place will become one of the sh%tholes Trump talked about.
San Francisco 🤢
It was republican Trump that rolled back safety protocols on trains and train tracks resulting in that major chemical spill 2 years? Ago
More like, “reinstatement of government as we correctly knew it!”