An EPA That Can't Regulate Pollution, An ATF That Can't Regulate Guns, And SO Much More!
In case you haven't been paying attention to SCOTUS pissing on 40 years of precedent, that's just the beginning. Overturning the Chevron Doctrine means those who will decide the safety of drugs, the legality of financial "wizardry", whether toxins are toxic, the limits to water and air pollution and pretty much everything else won't be women and men with skills and hard-earned expertise in toxicology, environmental science, firearms regulations, climatology, medicine and much more.
Instead, those who decide will be judges - unelected federal judges from (say) the Fifth Circuit Court, Trumpy as hell and cheap and easy to buy. More to the point, they don't have to know jack shit about anything beyond their legal playpens. Thanks to this, they'll all be "experts" on everything from medical devices to lead in drinking water and crumple zones in passenger cars.
EDIT
While the conservative legal movement decried the growth of the so-called administrative state, the Supreme Court's decision to reconsider the Chevron ruling sparked concerns that unwinding or even limiting the framework would threaten the ability of federal agencies to craft regulations on issues like the environment, nuclear energy or health care. Proponents of the doctrine have argued that agencies have the expertise and experience to address gaps in the laws enacted by Congress, especially when it comes to administering programs that serve broad swaths of the population. Overturning Chevron would make it more difficult for the federal government to implement the laws passed by Congress, its backers warned.
Kagan, in dissent, accused the conservative majority of usurping the power the legislative branch gave to agencies to make policy decisions and putting judges in the center of the administrative process on all manner of subjects. "What actions can be taken to address climate change or other environmental challenges? What will the nation's health-care system look like in the coming decades? Or the financial or transportation systems? What rules are going to constrain the development of A.I.?" she wrote. "In every sphere of current or future federal regulation, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role."
The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to leave Chevron deference intact, calling it a "bedrock principle of administrative law." Justice Department lawyers argued that the framework allows experts at federal agencies to interpret statutes, and have said they, not judges, are better suited to respond to ambiguities in a law. Chevron doctrine has been applied by lower courts in thousands of cases. The Supreme Court itself has invoked the framework to uphold agencies' interpretations of statutes at least 70 times, but not since 2016.
Roberts wrote for the court that its decision reversing Chevron would not call those questions those prior cases. But with Chevron overruled, Kagan warned of new legal challenges to longstanding agency interpretations that had never previously been targeted. The pair of disputes were among several others that the justices are deciding this term that involve the power of federal agencies. They also weighed the constitutionality of internal legal proceedings at the Securities and Exchange Commission, which threatened to upend the work of administrative law judges in various federal agencies, as well as whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives lacked the authority to outlaw bump stocks under a 1934 law that regulated machine guns.
EDIT
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-chevron-deference-power-of-federal-agencies/
Taste The Freedom!!!!
= new reply since forum marked as read
