Hacker News Reader

Comment by phone8675309 | Hacker News Reader

The entire point of this case was to dismantle the as many regulations as possible.

The end goal is to make sure all federal regulations come from Congress, which limits what regulations can be made because the Republicans will just say no to everything.

View on HN

The result is to give more power to the courts, not Congress. The safe assumption is that Congress will still write laws that are open to interpretation because otherwise the bills would be too big and complex for congressmen to handle. The difference is now when there is something ambiguous in the law the courts get to decide how it is interpreted instead of the relevant federal agencies because judges are better equipped to deal with the technical minutia of complex systems than the subject matter experts at the agencies. They are better equipped because the Heritage Foundation has been stacking the courts for years now in preparation for this ruling.

My children may yet get to witness rivers catching on fire, a spectacle that had been denied to them by the killjoys at the EPA.

It doesn't immediately do so, though. Part of the ruling is that the status quo is maintained; there's no obligation for agencies to proactively remove regulations in response to how they guess some court somewhere might rule on a hypothetical lawsuit.

So lawsuits have to be filed, first. So they will. Some of them may be resolved by the agencies just rolling over and doing the moral equivalent of pleading guilty, but if I know my principles of bureaucracy, that will be the rare exception, probably only so they can dedicate resources to some other more important lawsuit.

And the point of the "maintain status quo" part is to ensure the pain comes slowly, over the course of a decade or so, as court cases make their way through the system, only taking tiny bites out of the regulatory framework at a time, to make it really hard to point out how much overturning Chevron has hurt regulation in the US

My understanding is that ambiguity in regulations was decided by agency. This would be an incentive for legislature/regulators to define in excruciating detail the precise boundaries of the regulations which definitely means more. Perhaps even several orders of magnitude more regulation.

> Perhaps even several orders of magnitude more regulation.

And all of it will be written by corporate lobbyists. It's already that way now, of course, it's not like congressmen write any meaningful amount of legislation themselves, but now there will be an even larger army of unelected special interests making sure the regulations are very carefully tailored in their own best interests.

It’s been explicit goal of Conservatives for decades to remove “over regulation” and now thanks to this precedent newly instantiated corporations in the Texas 5th district can shop around to whatever judge they want and effectively strip any regulation now and forever; which has in fact already happened with a Texas judge ruling the FTC can’t ban non compete clauses

(https://ipwatchdog.com/2024/07/10/preliminary-injunction-ftc...)

That works right up until the moment the other side gets enough power to write some very specific regulations that are not open to interpretation. I am not convinced that the Conservatives will like the long term result of this decision; unintended consequences, etc. As usual, partisans have blinders on and consistently assume that this time they will permanently gain power and these choices can never be used by their opponents.

> That works right up until the moment the other side gets enough power to write some very specific regulations that are not open to interpretation.

You assume the Democrats want to govern instead of capitulate to the Republicans after enough delay.

Exactly not: there is now even more need for minute regulations, drafted by lobbyists and hapless politicians.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com