SB 20-12: No More Chevron Deference Act

[Mr. Reactionary]

There were 2 nay votes in the House so clearly this doesn't have unanimous support-I'd like someone to post a less favorable view of the bill.

Also 24 hors for objections on Yankee's final vote motion.

Well one of those no votes was Wulfric who literally said he otherwise supported the bill but for the fact that his in-game character wanted maximum one party power and that his vote would have been yes if Labor did not control the executive branch at the time the bill was being debated.

[Mr. Reactionary]

There were 2 nay votes in the House so clearly this doesn't have unanimous support-I'd like someone to post a less favorable view of the bill.

Also 24 hors for objections on Yankee's final vote motion.

Well one of those no votes was Wulfric who literally said he otherwise supported the bill but for the fact that his in-game character wanted maximum one party power and that his vote would have been yes if Labor did not control the executive branch at the time the bill was being debated.

I continue to abstain on having an opinion on Chevron as I haven't studied it to the point where I fully understand the pros and cons.

You clearly haven't studied Hurley or Dale to the point where you fully understand why your other bill is blatantly unconstitutional and yet you are ramming through a vote on that...

[Mr. Reactionary]

Doesn't this break stare decisis and what not? (Not like it is an inherently good or bad thing but it would be major)

I am probably missing a lot tbh

So to answer quickly... the Supreme Court interprets both the Constitution and statutory laws. Its interpretation of the Constitution is final unless there is a Constitutional amendment. Its interpretation of statutes are final ... unless the law in question is amended. The Chevron case explored the text of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which is the federal statute setting all of the rules for delegation of rulemaking powers by federal agencies. In this particular instance, this proposal is amending the text of the APA so that the text now reflects the opposite conclusion from Chevron. Since we are only overturning a statutory decision, it is OK to do so provided congress appropriately passes new statutory language.

Does that make sense? Basically in terms of legal hierarchy Constitution trumps statute. Congress can overturn Supreme court decisions over statutes if they amend the wording via a new statute in the same way that we all can collectively overturn a Supreme court decision over the Constitution if we amend the wording of the Constitution via the amendment process in the Constitution. So its ok to do this and if it fails to pass interpretation defaults back to the Supreme court interpretation.