“The risk in Chevron is that my high-wealth friends and I can’t so easily get bang for our buck in capturing regulatory agencies.” - What he should be saying
Legislative-writes laws. Executive-enforces laws. Judicial-interprets laws. These three branches should operate separately and with equal power. That’s how “checks and balances” works in this country.
Why is there uncertainty? Congress has been captured by special interest money, so now it is time to capture the executive branch. This is the natural consequence of equating corporations with persons.
What uncertainty? Now faceless unelected bureaucrats will not longer make law. Congress lost not one iota of enumerated power and neither did the executive.
@@foxooo exactly. Get them out of our lives. I don't need " regulating" only the weak and low IQ ones need that. Most people can take care of themselves if they have an ounce of common sense
@@foxooo Yes, those nameless faceless unelected bureaucrats will no longer make law. IF any of those things need to be regulated Congress needs to pass a law and have it signed by the president. Why is that so hard to grasp and why is that something people do not like?
Overturning Chevron And stops unelected bureaucrats from creating laws and puts that responsibility back in the hands of Congress. I see this is a big step forward for the American people.
@@garyminser2746 This literally just limits the number of people they have to "lobby". How many major crimes can get investigated at one time? Three, Four? How about a thousand? How about 10,000 spread out over hundreds of businesses, whose leaders literally meet with each other twice a year, party, and discuss future plans. With each other.
@@garyminser2746 Overturning Chevron does not put the responsibility back in the hands of Congress. Congress has always had the power to change agency regulations by passing laws. Overturning Chevron puts the responsibility of deciding the meaning of an ambiguous law in the hands of the courts, who are unaccountable to voters and lack technical expertise. You are so wrong, you have no idea how wrong you are. I’m guessing you didn’t actually read the Supreme Court’s decision. Read the decision and go to law school. Yes, I did both.
Regulations protect people. It's the corporations who are hindered by them. They invest large sums in propaganda that will manipuate dullards into rebuking the very regulations that protect them from the dangers of corporate irresponsibility.
@The_Tiffster Nooo way man it's gonna help the little guy be just like them someday 🤡 in fact it'll more likely consolidate big companies we will all sell our businesses to work for as they poison us
This is a red herring argument. What this changes is that the judges will be a court of equity and law, not judges of a department. No way this increases uncertainty. In fact it will solidify certainty as more of these issues get litigated and we have precedent set. Right now the department’s position changes with every new administration, which is the definition of volatility.
It will bring stability but at the cost of subject matter experts not being at the forefront of decisions. It also backs up every court in the nation for years and years to come because everyone and their mother will challenge any federal regulation they deem fit
The judges don't need experience running companies or running a business and trying to make a budget there are the professionals of the Constitution so don't worry about what they do because they made the right decision this time
Federal agencies have to follow the law, rather than making up their own arbitrary rules. That’s exactly how it’s supposed to be. Law enforcement agencies cannot act as two branches of the government, when regulating each other is part of the reason we have separate branches. If you have a problem with it, you don’t understand what it means. Also, there’s no sense in comparing our legal system or courts to a business. It’s not.
One of the things we learned from Covid was that the experts aren’t always expert. They brought their ideology and biases with them. There’s no reason the ‘experts’ in the bureaucracy don’t do the same.
This really needs to be explained to the public using examples of abuse that are easy to understand. Chevron was something that was being used by the people in power to guide the markets in the directions they wanted.
I had to laugh. He says that the agencies are filled with civil servants who are experts in their field and are predictable, but the courts are idealogical and political. Has he listened to the people running the agencies?
The entering hypothesis is the goal. Reduced bureaucracy do to lack of confidence in surviving litigation. Whatever this court is, it is increasing individual freedom and responsibility.
Regulatory agencies shouldn't be making laws or rules outside of congress. If your business needs clarity, then open a discussion in congress. This ensures the democratic process is followed. Giving regulatory bodies the power to rewrite rules and laws only opens the door for biased policies and destroys the democratic process.
Its overturning is the ATF's fault as they blatantly abused it to basically use existing laws to just declare by fiat of an 'expert' panel that something they wanted to arrest for was covered by a unrelated law and illegal. They did this by simply declaring ATF agents and former agents 'experts' by dint of 5+ years experience to pad the 'expert' committees and rubber stamp their wants. The Chevon Doctrine was supposed to make lawmakers consult experts before enforcing a law that may or may not apply. But its basically been abused for years to let the government do whatever it wants. Most of the time stepping on small businesses and ordinary citizens with harsh fees that basically bankrupt them while large corporations can just pay them with no real effort.
What a ridiculous way of thinking. Chevron has been an anvil around the necks of so many industries and individuals for decades. The precursor to this reversal was the 2021 West Virginia vs EPA case where the EPA tried to regulate coal producers out of existence potentially forcing an entire mega billion dollar industry to collapse. The court said that an administrative agency has no power to make decisions on such major questions unless Congress clearly gave it such authority. Reversing Chevron is arguably the most impactful case this term. In a good way.
A myopic analysis that ignores government agencies overstepping their authority and acting like legislators. The implications for some sweeping 2nd Amendment rulings will certainly emphasize my point.
Chevrons only been around for forty years. This country had been surviving just fine without it. This country was founded for freedom not business. Chevron being overturned levels the playing field.
Follow the law as written. What a concept. Of course he likes the certainty of unelected beurocrats making up rules as they go. It's faster for a buisness, so for course he doesn't like Chevron being overturned. It makes his job harder. Giving the power back to the legislature, what a tragedy. Congress and the Senate actually have to do something.😅😅😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣!!!!!!!!!
appointed agencies , that are not elected passing hard laws that is congresses's job these people will never cede authority or diminish their capacity and will act for their appointed party
Wrong, the US used to have rule of law. The original Chevron case was a huge mistake that allowed unelected Federal bureaucrats to make arbitrary rules without proper research or in accordance with established legal precedent. SCOTUS is nearly the only bright spot on the political scene in 2024. Feel free to tell how you feel good about the Executive branch for the last 3 years.
Overturning Chevron Deference simply means Congress is required to do their job better. They can no longer (INTENTIONALLY) write vague laws that sound like they're working for us while actually slaughtering us. Anyone that argues 1) that Congress lacks the expertise and 2) federal bureaucracies have that expertise is a fool. There is no such thing as an "expert". There are only individuals with more experience that has been proven right through success and testing. Federal bureaucrats by definition have no experience in any market. Their experience is navigating through a rats nest of red tape. Congress has the ability and mandate to ask for experienced groups to come forward to assist in crafting GOOD laws. And the bureaucracy has the requirement to send back to Congress when a rule is unclear. This shit has been going on ever since Woodrow Wilson and his Ivy League buddies decided govt should be led by intellectuals. Because they believe the average person is not smart enough.
Yes please don't get rid of what makes sure we have control. Maybe we need some non-business friendly time. It seems like CEOs of businesses and upper level management make 10 times the amount the hard workers that create the product or give the service actually receive. Perhaps if you all hadn't been so greedy and wanting to control the regulators. And buy off democracy this wouldn't be happening...
Which goes along with polls of the past that ceos prefer operating in dictatorships abroad. Maybe they support such here, too. F'n scary. Germany in the 30s operated for its industrialists as well.
@@DeepestVoidNtheUniverse The people are idiots and so is congress. Have you seen congress questioning industry executives on things like internet policy or the environment? How do you suggest they interpret and apply laws to things they don't understand?
He didn't call them idiots. They are not experts and rely on experts as integral to their understanding. But now, Justices, with no relevant expertise, will be free to rule whichever way their recently revealed sugardaddies desire.
Well, there is an easy fix. Congress should be more thorough when creating new legislation. Cross all the Ts and dot all the Is. No ambiguity equals no need for an unelected so-called expert to interpret them.
Uncertainty was the point...our Extreme Court has empowered themselves, and the wealthy, over and above the people and Congress. This is what modern Fascism looks like.
@highwildplacesphotography The reason the Chevron decision was struck down was in favor of small business owners who were being driven into the ground by arbitrary rules of federal agencies, being deprived of all recourse against them in the courts. By striking it down, it requires agencies to act on laws passed by Congress, and as interpreted by courts, instead of being able to make up any rules they wished, and requiring the lower courts to bow to the whims of agencies. In the particular case that brought Chevron to its end, a small fishing company of only a few people was being required to pay $700 per day to host an inspector on their boat... not because of law, but only because of made-up agency policy, acting as though federal law. The "Extreme Court" was striking this kind of behavior down as overreach: An agency should be enforcing existing law, not making up whatever policy they want.
@@Giant_MeteorExactly. No one seems interested in the onerous fee that would driven the fishermen into extinction or how the agencies operated before Chevron. As Gorsuch put it, the opinion puts a “tombstone” to Chevron.
You're full of it. Reversing the chevron rule gets rid of the administrative state. If it's going to be law, let congress pass the law and face their constitutes. No more administrative bs.
Why is there uncertainty? Congress has been captured by special interest money, so now it is time to capture the executive branch. This is the natural consequence of equating corporations with persons.
Because people voting on and passing laws are not subject matter experts? Do you think government employees tasked with enforcing fishing laws has actually worked on a fishing boat? If you look at th case that initiate this... the government wanted fishing boats to take government monitors with them so they could enforce fishing laws basically quotas. They also want these companies to pay for the monitors and of course these extra people would take up more space on fishing boats.
This is some hardcore gaslighting!
Weapons grade
“The risk in Chevron is that my high-wealth friends and I can’t so easily get bang for our buck in capturing regulatory agencies.” - What he should be saying
Legislative-writes laws.
Executive-enforces laws.
Judicial-interprets laws.
These three branches should operate separately and with equal power. That’s how “checks and balances” works in this country.
@@danamania150 Executive should be “Obides by Laws”
Nah, they now have a "Brexit" style decision that just hit them in the face. FU Wall Street, enjoy your wannabe oligarch karma. 🤭🖕
Guys like this determine regulation without legislative oversite in order to guide profits to their clients.😸
Why is there uncertainty? Congress has been captured by special interest money, so now it is time to capture the executive branch. This is the natural consequence of equating corporations with persons.
@shishkabobby executive branch is capped there moving on to the Supreme Court which appears to be capped as well.
Thank you for mentioning Citizens United, you are correct.
What uncertainty? Now faceless unelected bureaucrats will not longer make law. Congress lost not one iota of enumerated power and neither did the executive.
Amen
Well said!
Oh the ones who regulate ur food, water, medicine, roads, homes utilities?
@@foxooo exactly. Get them out of our lives. I don't need " regulating" only the weak and low IQ ones need that. Most people can take care of themselves if they have an ounce of common sense
@@foxooo Yes, those nameless faceless unelected bureaucrats will no longer make law. IF any of those things need to be regulated Congress needs to pass a law and have it signed by the president. Why is that so hard to grasp and why is that something people do not like?
This guy from Lazard is a CLOWN of the first order.
Overturning Chevron And stops unelected bureaucrats from creating laws and puts that responsibility back in the hands of Congress. I see this is a big step forward for the American people.
@@garyminser2746 This literally just limits the number of people they have to "lobby". How many major crimes can get investigated at one time? Three, Four? How about a thousand? How about 10,000 spread out over hundreds of businesses, whose leaders literally meet with each other twice a year, party, and discuss future plans. With each other.
@@garyminser2746 Overturning Chevron does not put the responsibility back in the hands of Congress. Congress has always had the power to change agency regulations by passing laws. Overturning Chevron puts the responsibility of deciding the meaning of an ambiguous law in the hands of the courts, who are unaccountable to voters and lack technical expertise. You are so wrong, you have no idea how wrong you are. I’m guessing you didn’t actually read the Supreme Court’s decision. Read the decision and go to law school. Yes, I did both.
@@homoeconomicus5711 arrogance doesn't become you. But hey I've never met a lefty that didn't have it.
"Oh nooo, faceless bureaucracies can no longer make de facto law, how will democracy survive?!"
No
You guest completely misunderstands the consequences of Chevron.
Boy, the tyrants sure are upset.
We should never have administrative overlords that we did not vote for. 🙄 This is beyond unconstitutional. Changes are needed.
I think you mean it's time for Congress to modify the law...
Why uncertainty??? More litigation?? So what..Stop pounding the American people with regulations...
I to like rat poison in my hamburgers
Regulations protect people. It's the corporations who are hindered by them. They invest large sums in propaganda that will manipuate dullards into rebuking the very regulations that protect them from the dangers of corporate irresponsibility.
@The_Tiffster Nooo way man it's gonna help the little guy be just like them someday 🤡 in fact it'll more likely consolidate big companies we will all sell our businesses to work for as they poison us
@@shadowfax88 😂
This guy is not being forth right....do tell what you're not revealing behind the veil.
This is a red herring argument. What this changes is that the judges will be a court of equity and law, not judges of a department. No way this increases uncertainty. In fact it will solidify certainty as more of these issues get litigated and we have precedent set. Right now the department’s position changes with every new administration, which is the definition of volatility.
Not when the decisions are made by a civil service that is not made up of political appointees. What is being implemented is your system.
It will bring stability but at the cost of subject matter experts not being at the forefront of decisions. It also backs up every court in the nation for years and years to come because everyone and their mother will challenge any federal regulation they deem fit
🤦♀️what I'm hearing is that your government underfunded your education system.
My question is: Is this intentional? And if so, who benefits?
The judges don't need experience running companies or running a business and trying to make a budget there are the professionals of the Constitution so don't worry about what they do because they made the right decision this time
Federal agencies have to follow the law, rather than making up their own arbitrary rules. That’s exactly how it’s supposed to be. Law enforcement agencies cannot act as two branches of the government, when regulating each other is part of the reason we have separate branches. If you have a problem with it, you don’t understand what it means.
Also, there’s no sense in comparing our legal system or courts to a business. It’s not.
One of the things we learned from Covid was that the experts aren’t always expert. They brought their ideology and biases with them. There’s no reason the ‘experts’ in the bureaucracy don’t do the same.
Plus the ruling power freaks can maintain absolute control.
I hate lawyers. Greedy and sell people out for a buck even knowing when convicting innocent people, then pretend to be morally above others.
Excellent point
Sell us all down the river for the corporate buck. Corp lawyers are easily the worst frauders of all time.
If no one can interpret the law. It can not be used against anyone.
NO AGENCY RULE IS A LAW - HOW MANY ARE IN PRISON FOR ATF RULES - TOO MANY
you have an incredible talent for making complex topics simple!
Concerned about consistency of regulation across states but not across time with a free-wheeling bureaucratic state? Fascinating.
Very informative ! Needs broadcast on a wide spread basis ! 🤔
This really needs to be explained to the public using examples of abuse that are easy to understand. Chevron was something that was being used by the people in power to guide the markets in the directions they wanted.
I had to laugh. He says that the agencies are filled with civil servants who are experts in their field and are predictable, but the courts are idealogical and political. Has he listened to the people running the agencies?
The entering hypothesis is the goal. Reduced bureaucracy do to lack of confidence in surviving litigation. Whatever this court is, it is increasing individual freedom and responsibility.
Regulatory agencies shouldn't be making laws or rules outside of congress. If your business needs clarity, then open a discussion in congress. This ensures the democratic process is followed. Giving regulatory bodies the power to rewrite rules and laws only opens the door for biased policies and destroys the democratic process.
Should never be used in politicized cases
Best part is the ATF can no longer unilaterally make up extra judicial anti constitutional "rules"
What's retail per foot of rope?
Don't do it.
Its overturning is the ATF's fault as they blatantly abused it to basically use existing laws to just declare by fiat of an 'expert' panel that something they wanted to arrest for was covered by a unrelated law and illegal. They did this by simply declaring ATF agents and former agents 'experts' by dint of 5+ years experience to pad the 'expert' committees and rubber stamp their wants. The Chevon Doctrine was supposed to make lawmakers consult experts before enforcing a law that may or may not apply. But its basically been abused for years to let the government do whatever it wants. Most of the time stepping on small businesses and ordinary citizens with harsh fees that basically bankrupt them while large corporations can just pay them with no real effort.
No.
Yes, gov't capture and corruption is so much more predictable. We're soo naive.
What a ridiculous way of thinking. Chevron has been an anvil around the necks of so many industries and individuals for decades. The precursor to this reversal was the 2021 West Virginia vs EPA case where the EPA tried to regulate coal producers out of existence potentially forcing an entire mega billion dollar industry to collapse. The court said that an administrative agency has no power to make decisions on such major questions unless Congress clearly gave it such authority. Reversing Chevron is arguably the most impactful case this term. In a good way.
Ideology and bias can also affect the "experts" opinions, so I think this is not a good or honest argument against the ruling.
What about the experts in the vaccine industry, maybe this is good they may think twice about putting out damaging vaccines.
A myopic analysis that ignores government agencies overstepping their authority and acting like legislators. The implications for some sweeping 2nd Amendment rulings will certainly emphasize my point.
Not for citizens
Chevrons only been around for forty years. This country had been surviving just fine without it. This country was founded for freedom not business. Chevron being overturned levels the playing field.
Nature abhors a vacuum. That's why most of the universe is interstellar space which is an extreme vacuum.
The Constitution. Please.
He is not for the people.
Nayse
If you can't stand, the judicial outcome, don't go to court.
When the Extreme Court legalizes machine guns, and says that the EPA cannot regulate pollution...it's time to change the court.
❤️❤️
Dracula got defanged 😝
❤❤❤❤❤
So the decision may not be pro business after all. Good analysis.
The Court's decision was correct and it helps the American people immensely
👍
Follow the law as written. What a concept. Of course he likes the certainty of unelected beurocrats making up rules as they go. It's faster for a buisness, so for course he doesn't like Chevron being overturned. It makes his job harder. Giving the power back to the legislature, what a tragedy. Congress and the Senate actually have to do something.😅😅😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣!!!!!!!!!
pershiyan language. ❤
cdc passes the law of eviction during covid. no authority to do so and the byron said that but let an unconstitutional precedant stand
I'm deaf and your jaws need rest as well as my shifty eyes from captioning.
LIE - AN AGENCY WILL ALWAYS ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THAT AGENCY!!!
🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
appointed agencies , that are not elected passing hard laws that is congresses's job these people will never cede authority or diminish their capacity and will act for their appointed party
Oh my, this fella sure has an interesting perspective. 😂
all bull
Maybe laws will benefit the people as a whole now and not just the 1% at the top. Sounds good
You've got it backwards. So many gullible people here🤦♀️
BS
Wrong, the US used to have rule of law. The original Chevron case was a huge mistake that allowed unelected Federal bureaucrats to make arbitrary rules without proper research or in accordance with established legal precedent.
SCOTUS is nearly the only bright spot on the political scene in 2024. Feel free to tell how you feel good about the Executive branch for the last 3 years.
Scouts are jerk weeds
Overturning Chevron Deference simply means Congress is required to do their job better. They can no longer (INTENTIONALLY) write vague laws that sound like they're working for us while actually slaughtering us.
Anyone that argues 1) that Congress lacks the expertise and 2) federal bureaucracies have that expertise is a fool. There is no such thing as an "expert". There are only individuals with more experience that has been proven right through success and testing. Federal bureaucrats by definition have no experience in any market. Their experience is navigating through a rats nest of red tape.
Congress has the ability and mandate to ask for experienced groups to come forward to assist in crafting GOOD laws. And the bureaucracy has the requirement to send back to Congress when a rule is unclear.
This shit has been going on ever since Woodrow Wilson and his Ivy League buddies decided govt should be led by intellectuals. Because they believe the average person is not smart enough.
Comrade Jacobs, I thoroughly agree with your comments.
Yes please don't get rid of what makes sure we have control. Maybe we need some non-business friendly time. It seems like CEOs of businesses and upper level management make 10 times the amount the hard workers that create the product or give the service actually receive. Perhaps if you all hadn't been so greedy and wanting to control the regulators. And buy off democracy this wouldn't be happening...
There's zero uncertainty! Congress decides, not unelected regulatory agencies!
No, you're lieing!
RULE CHANGES WITH EACH ADMINISTRATION IS UNCERTAINTY -
Which goes along with polls of the past that ceos prefer operating in dictatorships abroad. Maybe they support such here, too. F'n scary. Germany in the 30s operated for its industrialists as well.
This guy is trying to sell the dolts on why big gov is good, just not mentioning the salt in the game he has.
They end up in the hands of juries because that’s where they are supposed to be. Period.
Federal agencies should create laws
? Congress. Assembly of the people.
@@DeepestVoidNtheUniverse The people are idiots and so is congress. Have you seen congress questioning industry executives on things like internet policy or the environment? How do you suggest they interpret and apply laws to things they don't understand?
Really enjoy reading how all these Nobel Laureates in economics are trashing the guy who literally is ahead of his time on this subject.
Old Kenny boy just called jurors idiots . Talk about smug .
He didn't call them idiots. They are not experts and rely on experts as integral to their understanding. But now, Justices, with no relevant expertise, will be free to rule whichever way their recently revealed sugardaddies desire.
The Law of Unintended Consequences always provides.
This guy is not making any sense.
None of his arguments make any sense.
How so?
It’s called unintended consequences
Well, there is an easy fix. Congress should be more thorough when creating new legislation. Cross all the Ts and dot all the Is. No ambiguity equals no need for an unelected so-called expert to interpret them.
This is all about making money for the rich, not caring about the environment and the future of our children. Greed first.
The legislature can still ban all the things and regulate to their hearts content just not the unelected bureaucracy.
Power hungry bureaucrats like this, are a waste of air
Uncertainty was the point...our Extreme Court has empowered themselves, and the wealthy, over and above the people and Congress. This is what modern Fascism looks like.
@highwildplacesphotography The reason the Chevron decision was struck down was in favor of small business owners who were being driven into the ground by arbitrary rules of federal agencies, being deprived of all recourse against them in the courts.
By striking it down, it requires agencies to act on laws passed by Congress, and as interpreted by courts, instead of being able to make up any rules they wished, and requiring the lower courts to bow to the whims of agencies.
In the particular case that brought Chevron to its end, a small fishing company of only a few people was being required to pay $700 per day to host an inspector on their boat... not because of law, but only because of made-up agency policy, acting as though federal law. The "Extreme Court" was striking this kind of behavior down as overreach: An agency should be enforcing existing law, not making up whatever policy they want.
Or a Congress who is afraid to fix it.
@@Giant_MeteorExactly. No one seems interested in the onerous fee that would driven the fishermen into extinction or how the agencies operated before Chevron. As Gorsuch put it, the opinion puts a “tombstone” to Chevron.
Chevron has been around for 170 years. Small businesses have done fine
Or a very lazy Congress.
We saw how the experts handled COVID. The earlier we throw out experts the better for everyone.
You're full of it. Reversing the chevron rule gets rid of the administrative state. If it's going to be law, let congress pass the law and face their constitutes. No more administrative bs.
Yeah I just get the feeling that these guys are lying through their teeth. And I'm rarely wrong about that
Why is there uncertainty? Congress has been captured by special interest money, so now it is time to capture the executive branch. This is the natural consequence of equating corporations with persons.
Because people voting on and passing laws are not subject matter experts? Do you think government employees tasked with enforcing fishing laws has actually worked on a fishing boat?
If you look at th case that initiate this... the government wanted fishing boats to take government monitors with them so they could enforce fishing laws basically quotas. They also want these companies to pay for the monitors and of course these extra people would take up more space on fishing boats.
Why did you wrote this twice?