Red Mosquito

simple schoolboy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:What is Chevron anyway? Some folks are claiming it means the end of consumer protection rules and other say it prevents unconstitutional expansion of federal law.

If a regulatory rule is ambiguous, the relevant department gets to interpret it as it sees fit.

Basically the legislature can't divest its powers to the executive and have them come up with rules that (yesterday's ruling) evade judicial review or be interpreted by themselves when unclear (Chevron).

Proggles hated Chevron during the Bush admin when the EPA would interpret things to the benefit of companies (or whoever). It's all kind of window dressing by not revisiting Wickard v Filburn and cutting the feds back to their proper (very limited) role.

CFPB has other issues relating to its possibly unconstitutionally structure., maybe next on the chopping block.

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:What is Chevron anyway? Some folks are claiming it means the end of consumer protection rules and other say it prevents unconstitutional expansion of federal law.

If a regulatory rule is ambiguous, the relevant department gets to interpret it as it sees fit.

Basically the legislature can't divest its powers to the executive and have them come up with rules that (yesterday's ruling) evade judicial review or be interpreted by themselves when unclear (Chevron).

Proggles hated Chevron during the Bush admin when the EPA would interpret things to the benefit of companies (or whoever). It's all kind of window dressing by not revisiting Wickard v Filburn and cutting the feds back to their proper (very limited) role.

CFPB has other issues relating to its possibly unconstitutionally structure., maybe next on the chopping block.

Isn’t this actually real bad though? I get that arbitrary enforcement is a key element of corruption, but what’s to stop companies from doing something like putting lead or other toxic metals back into consumer products unless federal law explicitly sets limits?

B wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

B wrote:

Here's a better explanation of the particulars:

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

B wrote:

Here's a better explanation of the particulars:

My useless brain still isn’t quite getting it yet. I understand the arbitrary enforcement piece, but how would regulations work if the cost had to be covered solely by the agency making it?

tragabigzanda wrote:Obviously bad news for America, but can someone explain to me how this systemic power grab is ethically worse than the DNC forcing an unfit geriatric presidential nominee on their electorate with zero meaningful public discourse?

tragabigzanda wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Obviously bad news for America, but can someone explain to me how this systemic power grab is ethically worse than the DNC forcing an unfit geriatric presidential nominee on their electorate with zero meaningful public discourse?

Yes that’s exactly the same thing as an insurrection against your country

I said ethically, not practically. Learn to read!