Does the FTC actually have the power to set rules like this effectively now that Chevron deference isn't a thing? I'd imagine e.g. the New York Times, among others, will quickly sue to stop this, no?
replies(10):
SCOTUS' power/respect only goes as far as they're actually listening to the will of Americans. This is not representing Americans if they override. Same for abortion (just legality not anything about enforcement), same for presidential immunity.
We have expectations, and they do not align with SCOTUS, so SCOTUS is not a valid interpretive institution. "The Supreme Court has made their decision, let's see them enforce it."
And against my best judgement, I’ll add that in it was roe v wade itself that was essentially judges creating law (shoehorning abortion rights into a right to privacy is a stretch).
You call out yourself that the judges are essentially creating law. (presidential immunity and abortion both are just bonkers decisions based on thoughts and feelings). I think the only way to curb that from the supreme court is that the other governing body capable of action (see not congress) needs to remind SCOTUS that they've got finite power.
Do you have another alternative here? Maybe more ethics rules that SCOTUS doesn't have to follow? Wait for congress to impeach a sitting justice for corruption? Hopes and prayers?
The main difference is that now unelected judges decide how to interpret the law instead of unelected administrative officials. But that's what judges do.
What this is really about is that nobody wants to get blamed for what happens. So Congress passes purposely ambiguous laws and then deflects blame onto the courts for interpreting them one way or the other. The courts didn't like that so they said they'd defer to administrative agencies. It turns out the administrative agencies did like that, because they have almost no direct accountability and the only elected ticket in the executive branch has a term limit and frequently switches parties, so it was easy for them to participate in the revolving door and line their pockets.
Now the courts are going to go back to doing their job, so naturally now they get the blame for Congress passing ambiguous laws again, and the people profiting from the status quo are railing against it as if the courts are doing something wrong instead of doing what they ought to have been doing the whole time.
Yeah, but they could've overturned it if they didn't like it.
> The main difference is that now unelected judges decide how to interpret the law instead of unelected administrative officials. But that's what judges do.
This is a huge difference you kinda skip over. Should the policies and regulations of 100s of industries be decided by:
1. People who are only familiar with court proceedings 2. Experts in those industries with experience in those industries
One of those things is meaningfully worse, because we're going to get a ton of "armchair experts" on culture war issues who have no idea about what's happening on the ground, and just have their own culture-war opinion that ignores the nuance of the situation.
The question is if they could've passed it to begin with. There is nothing in the constitution giving Congress the power to delegate its lawmaking authority to the executive branch, much less deprive the courts of their interpretive role.
> Should the policies and regulations of 100s of industries be decided by:
> 1. People who are only familiar with court proceedings 2. Experts in those industries with experience in those industries
The first one is actually better, because it makes it harder for the industry to capture the decisionmakers. Meanwhile the experts are still in the court, they just have to argue their case before the judge instead of having the parties argue their case before the "experts" with a sack of cash.