Comment by anonymouse008

No, Chevron deference breeds sanity. it would be insane to think that every little detail of complex regulatory structure must be outlined specifically in legislation in order for it to be valid. For example, legislation gives the EPA the power to regulate waterways. Chevron deference allows the EPA to use its expertise to write rules that say you can't dump benzine into the river. Without Chevron deference, someone who wants to dump benzine in the river could challenge the EPA saying that the law doesn't specifically say you can't dump benzine in the river. Imagine relying on our elected officials to come up with a list of what is and isn't considered toxic.

>Congress should have gotten off their hands and written something by now, same with Crypto legislation. “Chevron Deference” breeds tyranny through legislative apathy

It would be literally impossible for congress to rule on every nuanced thing that Chevron allows agencies to do. Saying "congress should take care of it" shows either an intentional disregard for the roles agencies and their experts play, or a complete misunderstanding of the power it grants to federal agencies.

"It breeds tyranny" is absolutely ridiculous. When agencies rule in a manner people find unjust, they sue and win or lose in a court of law based on the content of the policy. It also gives congress a chance to rule on "big ticket" things that do need addressing without causing an absolute standstill having to rule on something as mundane as what the legal weight and length limit should be each season for catching a salmon from federal land in Montana.

It's by design. Legislators aren't and can't be competent regulators, and they know this.

Congress can't even handle managing fiscal policy sanely, and that's the one job they can't delegate.

From a practical point of view, it's hard to say whether Congress would make better or worse decisions, and it's probably good that the government can make decisions about new technologies while Congress is mostly dysfunctional.

Maybe the thing that guards against tyranny is that Congress can override them (by passing a law) if regulators screw up badly enough?

At least, in theory.

Just like, in theory, the people could elect a better Congress.

Congress did act. They passed the TCPA in 1991 knowing full well that Chevron deference would allow the FCC to tweak their interpretation of the law as facts change. Congress doesn't want to have to micromanage things like this. If they did they would write the laws in a way that prevents situations where Chevron comes into play. And anyway, getting rid of Chevron would transfer the agencies powers to the courts, not congress.

Saying "Congress should" is basically abdicating solving the problem

Have you listened to our congresspeople? Nothing they do or say suggests to me that they have the capabilities to legislate effectively on technical matters, be they AI, Pollution or Food Safety.

We have departments that have traditionally been staffed with SMEs to make these rulings and decisions on behalf of congress, who legislates their existence and budget.

Looks like someone doesn't give a shit about shared resources or tragedies of the commons, and wants to do away with important regulation...

Our country is falling apart because of the current level of congressional ineptitude. One party refuses to support important legislation they specifically asked for because it may give the opposition party a positive news article.

Wishing the Congress had to study and pass legislation for all enforcement and regulation of society is tantamount to accelerationism.

Congress can’t reasonably be expected to rule on everything, nor are they equipped with the expertise to do so.

there is simply no way for congress to enact every regulation. This is all a power grab for corporations bankrolling republican judges and congress critters to be able to ignore any regulations they want in order to make a few more bucks.