←back to thread

1737 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Spoom ◴[] No.41859299[source]
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): >>41859333 #>>41859374 #>>41859467 #>>41859485 #>>41859700 #>>41859742 #>>41860115 #>>41861055 #>>41862301 #>>41863207 #
xracy ◴[] No.41862301[source]
We gotta stop giving SCOTUS credit for bad decisions when they make unpopular opinions. SCOTUS is not supposed to make legislation, and if they are going to try and override Chevron from the bench without legislation, then we have to ignore them.

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."

replies(3): >>41862417 #>>41865037 #>>41866868 #
1. refurb ◴[] No.41866868[source]
Why would Chevron need to be overridden by legislation when it wasn’t created by legislation? It was created by the courts so logically it could be struck down by the courts.

And the courts are not supposed to represent the “will of the people”. Law is not a popularity contest.