Chevron is 40 years old. How can you come after it for at least 50 years?

But doesn’t a lot of this come down to “ambiguity” in statutes which can be attributed to lack of technical expertise. In the example of you make is there a difference between:

Congress saying the agency is responsible for ensuring drinking water is safe vs the agency is limiting heavy metals in drinking water? If a statute says the agency is responsible for regulating drinking water safety including, but not limited to, heavy metal levels can they also regulate microplastics?

If ambiguity is at play doesn’t that require congress to provide more technical definition to some degree?

It’s crazy it goes to the courts. In an early published ruling Gorush’s ruling was talking about the compound of laughing gas because he confuse it for an air pollutant…

Interesting, I was going off the NYT summary when the news broke:

Forty years ago, when Chevron was decided by a unanimous but short-handed six-member Supreme Court, with three justices recused, it was generally viewed as a victory for conservatives. In response to a challenge from environmental groups, the justices sustained a Reagan-era interpretation of the Clean Air Act that loosened regulation of emissions, saying the Environmental Protection Agency’s reading of the statute was “a reasonable construction” that was “entitled to deference.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/supreme-court-chevron-ruling.html

Can you provide a quote from the article. I don’t see anything factually wrong.

I am hopeful this could pass. Congress knows they are not technical subject matter experts. They don’t like looking like fools when they talk about the Internet being a bunch of tubes. They want to be able to pass legislation and delegate the details to experts, at least to some degree. They don’t want the overhead of that nuance and detail it takes agencies to define. I am surprised the judiciary wants that responsibility…

With agencies Congress has a scapegoat to drag in the muck and make them look good on TV. Without agencies, Congress is responsible for their own laws and being very explicit about some technical details. They look bad if shit breaks now.

I have no faith in them be able to pass something like this. Not when this is what the Republicans have been dreaming of for the last 50 years. But I hope they keep trying.

They haven’t. The ruling is only 40 years old from 1984. And it was actually a Reagan era interpretation based on Reagan EPA era. Not sure when the Republicans changed their mind on this though.

Edit: this probably is a trump era, fauci backlash, change. Maybe tea party roots. But this level of anti intellectualism and Republicans getting nominated to dismantle and not govern didn’t exist until probably 2010. Mitt Romney, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield probably all wanted and supported agencies to do their bidding. Mitch used his power to guy like Anit Pai in the FCC which Obama approved…

Bernie was such a good surprise candidate, but that only happened because Warren didnt run. I wish she did. I think that was her time and would have avoided some of the criticisms (whether fair or unfairly thrown) at Bernie.

Sorry. how does AOC defeating democratic moderate in a primary impact a republican getting elected. I don’t think moderate D’s or voting R on the presidential ballot. A moderate Democrat is still voting democrat.

I hate this divisive bullshit. Democracies require pluralities. You need to be a big tent party to govern.

simple people over simplify answers. money was one factor. but his outreach game sucked. he embarrassed himself in nationally visible ways (fire alarm). he took hard stances on divisive political issues (Israel/Hams) when his constituents had divided opinions. he district was redrawn so he lost part of his base.

Why didn’t local democrats in his district come out to support him with more rigor? Did he forge those relationships? Did he cooperate and take time to get to know the Westchester community? If I understand correctly, the redistricting made him lose a chunk of the Bronx. Race-wise it looks like based on wikipedia change history the district changed from 30% black and 30% white to 40% white and 20% black. I am not saying this is inherently racism, but his constituency changed. He lost a pocket of his base and was required to forge new relationships and build up a new base. And his fumbles and positions on Israel did not help in that regard. Money played into it, but he redistricting and bad choices created the vulnerability that allowed them to step in.

This jezebel garbage is pretty rage baity. The NYT had a much better and informative take: What Jamaal Bowman’s Loss Means for the Left https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/26/nyregion/jamaal-bowman-squad-left.html

And

Bowman Falls to Latimer in a Loss for Progressive Democrats https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/nyregion/bowman-latimer-house-new-york.html

On the ground, though, even some of Mr. Bowman’s allies conceded that his campaign was in trouble long before the group got involved, hamstrung by unforced errors, staff churn and strategic missteps.

The biggest took place last fall when Mr. Bowman, in a hurry to get to the Capitol, pulled the fire alarm. He later apologized, but he was charged with a misdemeanor, and the timing, just a week before Oct. 7, could hardly have been worse.

Opposition researchers turned up old blog posts dabbling in 9/11 conspiracy theories and publicized video of Mr. Bowman calling reports that Hamas sexually abused Israeli women during its attack “propaganda.” (He later apologized.)

Relatively few Democrats in the area stepped up to defend him. Some explained that in four years in office, the congressman had rarely shown interest in getting to know their communities.

His district boundaries changed and he did nothing to reach out to and attempt to represent his new constituents.

Also didn’t help being so adamant dismissing claims of all sexual violence on oct 7. He didn’t understand his constituents which changed slightly in redistricting, and for some reason the Bernie and AOC rallies occurred like 10 miles outside of his district which was most at risk for primary. Probably doesn’t help referring to all people with any sympathy towards Israel as being part of a Zionist regime. Probably should have focused more on domestic issues that got him elected instead of focusing heavily on foreign policy that was divisive in his district.

What do you mean by “the point”? Anything that doesnt fit the preferred narrative is just not the point or arbitrary?

The star wars analogy is what I responded to. What was the point of that.

I’m not making a both sides argument about history. I’m making a both sides observations about personal experience and belief. Individuals on both side have experienced things that compel them to feel justified in war at a personal psychological and biographical level. Collectively, at a sociological level too. Explanation/description and justification are not the same thing, and I am merely trying to explain that no side thinks they are the bad guys, and both sides think they have justification. If you want to explain “why” israel goes to war it’s not useful to describe them as a maniacal bond villain or one dimensional like a Marvel Villain.

I think the conflation of justification vs understanding, description, explanation, is preventing us from having meaningul discourse. When Hannah Arendt wrote “The Origins of Totalitarianism” it wasn’t a justification for the the holocaust. It was a description of the rationality that lead to the holocaust. Just because you can attempt to understand evil doesn’t mean you are promoting or justifying it. Today, merely suggesting that Israeli’s suffered and had had experienced a sense of duty to rescue hostages is somehow interpreted as an argument for genocide and will somehow cause someone to be accused of being a zionist or some other inflammatory rhetorical pejorative.

Both sides think they’re the good guys with something to avenge. And both sides probably do have that.

Ironically doesn’t this star wars analogy work the other way. Israel citizens are attacked. A small relatively small amount of civilians die. Then Israel goes commits genocide.

Obviously. I’m Lemmy and against that. But there are dominant pov’s on Lemmy that saturate threads and are reflected in up votes and down votes

I agree with all these things. But I dont understand the hail corporate mentality of being upset or knee jerk defending steam. I’m curious to see where the suit goes and evaluate if I should consider joining a class action suit as I learn more.