Also, Ben Dreyfuss is over there tweeting (X-ing?) about how it's been so long since you invited him on the pod. If anyone needs a bath robe it's him. He needs to cover up those boney shoulders when he zooms in from his four-poster princess bed.
My liberal friends have been vacillating between despair, anger, and denial since the debate, but they ALL told me that the SCOTUS just approved Trump doing anything he wants, that we will now have zero environmental regulations, and we will definitely "lose our country" if Trump is elected because of these decisions.
Can you guess their news sources? They listen to is MSNBC and NPR and they only read the NYT, which many of them now consider right-wing after its editorial urging Biden to step down. Because they've been so hysterical, I was starting to get riled up too (There's only so long I can resist peer pressure, especially in a swing state). This interview was a balm for my soul. Thank you.
Damon Root is everything that is missing from media and political analysis; he appreciates nuance and ambiguity, and he knows his limits and avoids over speculation (as evidenced by his response to Kmele's question among other things).
Thank you Matt for standing up for Jay Bhattacharya, I agree that his situation seems standing-y or standing-ish or whatever fancy legal term of art you used.
There may well be flaws in the case I'm not aware of but as a casual observer I'm disheartened that the court was either unfamiliar with this aspect of the case, or they were so wedded to their beloved punt strategy that they were unwilling to learn a bit more about the particulars re: Jay B. especially and a few others
I read somewhere that the reason the parties lacked standing was because the social media empires had de-amplified their views BEFORE the Administration began asking them to. Seems like hair splitting to me, but what the hell do I know?
Something that a lot of people don’t realize is that the standard expressed in Chevron is not uniform for state agencies in state court so while Chevron applied to Federal Agencies some states have explicitly rejected it or use standards that weren’t as strict (the state decisions often explicitly reject the idea of Chevron and/or point to State Constitutions that may have stricter separation of powers). Some states like Arizona (in large part thanks to the Goldwater Institute) passed state laws explicitly saying courts cannot give deference to agency interpretation of laws.
All that to say there are hundreds of state agencies that accomplish their work just fine without receiving deference on their interpretations of statutes.
California also doesn't have Chevron (we have a test based on the other federal deference doctrine - Skidmore deference) but agencies still often functionally get carte blanche, at least in part because our APA just gives them a lot more power.
Chevron really messed with the law of all these other agencies' domain. Take, for example, labor law. Depending on whether team red or team blue is in office, certain acts by employers and unions can be interpreted as unfair labor practices. Now, hopefully, the courts define and interpret what statutes exist with some staying power outside the current administration.
As I basically summarized in the Fifdom chat, the Court's finally taking their power back to determine "what the law is", whether it be Chevron, immunity, etc.
Yeah it is all a balance. You can't require that the legislation is super hyper specific. But at the same time right now the gulf between the legislation and the implementation is simply too big. So people want to run back to the law, but the law is often frankly mute on what is in dispute.
So you are relying on the interpretations of appointees and career civil servants, which can be highly political, or worse yet, simply don't respond at all and don't want to make a decision so they slow everything down and muck everything up.
A real world example of what you’re talking about: The company I left last year was under investigation by the CPSC. The investigation started during the Trump administration, and it was concluded in my employer’s favor.
During the Biden administration, though, the investigation was re-opened, the agency initiated litigation, and my company spent a lot of time, money, and effort to comply with something they thought had already been concluded. It was really disruptive!
I think the immunity ruling is a bad one, but the reaction is also annoying. As with all controversial rulings, people act as though we have no recourse other than to change the composition of the Court. In fact, Congress and the States could pass Amendments that reverse or limit the Court's decision(s). Yes, it's hard (by design...maybe even a *little* bit too hard), but I desperately wish someone would at least broach the subject. We aren't powerless in the face of the Supreme Court!
The Clearance Thomas stories are very simple to understand. You see for 30+ years he was simply an Uncle Tom. The updated story is that he is now an Uncle Tom *for money*... no more no less.
Oh, it's all the same. The secret totalizing agenda that the elites are about to foist on the country/world without anyone (except the brave truth-tellers!) realizing before it's too late. Among many other faults in logic, this tic assumes that public opinion in democracies is functionally irrelevant.
For sure, it is true that groups of luminaries/elites get together and make plans and come up with ideas for how the world would be better. Hell we do that around here too.
Where it bleeds into conspiracy theory is when people think there is some secret deep state or other cabal who is hyper organized and is going to be able to implement widespread changes on short notice with little political/electoral support. That just isn't how the world works currently.
It reminds me of the otherwise normal (but on this issue crazy) conservatives I knew I rural areas who were convinced that on like 1 FEB 2009 after Obama was elected the FBI was going to fan out across the country and confiscate all the guns. A lot of people really seemed to think there was some danger of that. There is just a fundamental lack of understanding about what government can accomplish on short notice and how it works.
That said, I’m wondering what other effects the Chevron overturn might have on the burgeoning Administrative State.
Big three-letter agency has a huge appropriation. Five-letter agency underneath has some roles for, say, toupee inspectors.
There is no specific law passed that gives the three-letter behemoth to inspect toupees. But there was a reference to it the last time an appropriation was passed. The five-letter hired a GS-14 and two GS-9s in 2014. They’ve now got three GS-15s, for 14s each with ten people underneath.
To inspect toupees.
Separate issue surrounding Biden’s mental fitness — if he’s not competent, could any of the actions he took be challenged on suspected incapacity?
An as-applied challenge could be brought by an affected toupee-maker, arguing that the enabling legislation didn't grant toupee-inspection powers. However, even if the challenge won and the agency was barred from inspecting any further toupees, the GS-15s, -14s, and -9s don't go away - Congress authorized their hiring with the funding bill, regardless of whether or not they had anything to do. The division will probably just be retasked to other semi-related activity (see how the Biden Administration has effectively retasked a lot of immigration enforcement to immigration facilitation).
Yall really need to talk to Sarah Isgur for the non hysterical, straight read on the SCOTUS stuff. She's the only one who is actually providing the straight dope on these rulings in their greater context. Roberts is trying to get the courts out of this shit. And in the end, no constitution will protect the country from voters electing a tyrant
I wouldn't trust either party with SCOTUS reform right now, but I don't think having a larger court or having a limited term of service for its members are bad ideas, per se.
I know Matt met her once on Bill Maher, but Sarah Isgur over at the Dispatch would be another fun person to talk to about general Supreme Court stuff.
Also, Ben Dreyfuss is over there tweeting (X-ing?) about how it's been so long since you invited him on the pod. If anyone needs a bath robe it's him. He needs to cover up those boney shoulders when he zooms in from his four-poster princess bed.
Hahaha 😂
My liberal friends have been vacillating between despair, anger, and denial since the debate, but they ALL told me that the SCOTUS just approved Trump doing anything he wants, that we will now have zero environmental regulations, and we will definitely "lose our country" if Trump is elected because of these decisions.
Can you guess their news sources? They listen to is MSNBC and NPR and they only read the NYT, which many of them now consider right-wing after its editorial urging Biden to step down. Because they've been so hysterical, I was starting to get riled up too (There's only so long I can resist peer pressure, especially in a swing state). This interview was a balm for my soul. Thank you.
Damon Root is everything that is missing from media and political analysis; he appreciates nuance and ambiguity, and he knows his limits and avoids over speculation (as evidenced by his response to Kmele's question among other things).
Guy sounds exactly like Andy Levy
Thank you Matt for standing up for Jay Bhattacharya, I agree that his situation seems standing-y or standing-ish or whatever fancy legal term of art you used.
There may well be flaws in the case I'm not aware of but as a casual observer I'm disheartened that the court was either unfamiliar with this aspect of the case, or they were so wedded to their beloved punt strategy that they were unwilling to learn a bit more about the particulars re: Jay B. especially and a few others
I read somewhere that the reason the parties lacked standing was because the social media empires had de-amplified their views BEFORE the Administration began asking them to. Seems like hair splitting to me, but what the hell do I know?
Something that a lot of people don’t realize is that the standard expressed in Chevron is not uniform for state agencies in state court so while Chevron applied to Federal Agencies some states have explicitly rejected it or use standards that weren’t as strict (the state decisions often explicitly reject the idea of Chevron and/or point to State Constitutions that may have stricter separation of powers). Some states like Arizona (in large part thanks to the Goldwater Institute) passed state laws explicitly saying courts cannot give deference to agency interpretation of laws.
All that to say there are hundreds of state agencies that accomplish their work just fine without receiving deference on their interpretations of statutes.
California also doesn't have Chevron (we have a test based on the other federal deference doctrine - Skidmore deference) but agencies still often functionally get carte blanche, at least in part because our APA just gives them a lot more power.
Chevron really messed with the law of all these other agencies' domain. Take, for example, labor law. Depending on whether team red or team blue is in office, certain acts by employers and unions can be interpreted as unfair labor practices. Now, hopefully, the courts define and interpret what statutes exist with some staying power outside the current administration.
As I basically summarized in the Fifdom chat, the Court's finally taking their power back to determine "what the law is", whether it be Chevron, immunity, etc.
Yeah it is all a balance. You can't require that the legislation is super hyper specific. But at the same time right now the gulf between the legislation and the implementation is simply too big. So people want to run back to the law, but the law is often frankly mute on what is in dispute.
So you are relying on the interpretations of appointees and career civil servants, which can be highly political, or worse yet, simply don't respond at all and don't want to make a decision so they slow everything down and muck everything up.
A real world example of what you’re talking about: The company I left last year was under investigation by the CPSC. The investigation started during the Trump administration, and it was concluded in my employer’s favor.
During the Biden administration, though, the investigation was re-opened, the agency initiated litigation, and my company spent a lot of time, money, and effort to comply with something they thought had already been concluded. It was really disruptive!
I think the immunity ruling is a bad one, but the reaction is also annoying. As with all controversial rulings, people act as though we have no recourse other than to change the composition of the Court. In fact, Congress and the States could pass Amendments that reverse or limit the Court's decision(s). Yes, it's hard (by design...maybe even a *little* bit too hard), but I desperately wish someone would at least broach the subject. We aren't powerless in the face of the Supreme Court!
Welch: 'Costumes are sweet' referring to SCOTUS 😂😂😂
I heard that in Cartman voice when I read it 😂
Gabby G shared this in the broader chat last week. I listened yesterday and she was right, it was very good. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0wdfrhd2Xg6k9GCoRqJsZo?si=9XYQwytMQQyUEP8xMi_B9A&t=4200
Maybe I missed it, but is there a solid article out there discussing the absurdity of believing Project 2025 is anything more than a white paper?
Don't you remember all the hair-tearing over the New American Century, or whatever it was called?
The Clearance Thomas stories are very simple to understand. You see for 30+ years he was simply an Uncle Tom. The updated story is that he is now an Uncle Tom *for money*... no more no less.
Is Project 2025 now somewhat equivalent to the right’s obsession with the WEF?
Agenda 2030 I think is the comp. You have to have a scarily vague name, plus a Year Zero.
Never heard of Agenda 2030 or Year Zero. Have to look them up.
Where would you say the obsession with WEF fits then? I run into people all the time who are afraid of the great reset and 15 minute cities.
Oh, it's all the same. The secret totalizing agenda that the elites are about to foist on the country/world without anyone (except the brave truth-tellers!) realizing before it's too late. Among many other faults in logic, this tic assumes that public opinion in democracies is functionally irrelevant.
Don’t forget the bugs 🐛 🐜🦟🪲🕷️🐞🪳
The tasty, tasty bugs.
For sure, it is true that groups of luminaries/elites get together and make plans and come up with ideas for how the world would be better. Hell we do that around here too.
Where it bleeds into conspiracy theory is when people think there is some secret deep state or other cabal who is hyper organized and is going to be able to implement widespread changes on short notice with little political/electoral support. That just isn't how the world works currently.
It reminds me of the otherwise normal (but on this issue crazy) conservatives I knew I rural areas who were convinced that on like 1 FEB 2009 after Obama was elected the FBI was going to fan out across the country and confiscate all the guns. A lot of people really seemed to think there was some danger of that. There is just a fundamental lack of understanding about what government can accomplish on short notice and how it works.
I wonder, do unserious politicians breed unserious voters, or vice versa? Or both equally?
You might be on to something with this comparison
Damon’s analysis of SCOTUS is always very good.
That said, I’m wondering what other effects the Chevron overturn might have on the burgeoning Administrative State.
Big three-letter agency has a huge appropriation. Five-letter agency underneath has some roles for, say, toupee inspectors.
There is no specific law passed that gives the three-letter behemoth to inspect toupees. But there was a reference to it the last time an appropriation was passed. The five-letter hired a GS-14 and two GS-9s in 2014. They’ve now got three GS-15s, for 14s each with ten people underneath.
To inspect toupees.
Separate issue surrounding Biden’s mental fitness — if he’s not competent, could any of the actions he took be challenged on suspected incapacity?
An as-applied challenge could be brought by an affected toupee-maker, arguing that the enabling legislation didn't grant toupee-inspection powers. However, even if the challenge won and the agency was barred from inspecting any further toupees, the GS-15s, -14s, and -9s don't go away - Congress authorized their hiring with the funding bill, regardless of whether or not they had anything to do. The division will probably just be retasked to other semi-related activity (see how the Biden Administration has effectively retasked a lot of immigration enforcement to immigration facilitation).
Yall really need to talk to Sarah Isgur for the non hysterical, straight read on the SCOTUS stuff. She's the only one who is actually providing the straight dope on these rulings in their greater context. Roberts is trying to get the courts out of this shit. And in the end, no constitution will protect the country from voters electing a tyrant
I wouldn't trust either party with SCOTUS reform right now, but I don't think having a larger court or having a limited term of service for its members are bad ideas, per se.