Chevron deference is when a law is vague the alphabet agency, like epa, gets to interpret the law thus legislation without representation. Now if the law is vague it goes back to Congress. Hope this helps with emissions and gun laws
Some how I am not sure that will help but at least we can hope there is accountability
For us dummies in the back of the class... what did Chevron do?
I'm not sure, it was back on the 70's I think
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org EPA
This is going to hurt all those 3 letter agencies that think their God and like to interpret the laws their own way. Now the law will be the law and no more making crap up, like they have been doing for 40 years. What they need to do next is, remove the exact amount of money that they waste on lawsuits and court time, from their budgets.
This is probably one of the largest SCOTUS ruling of our time. It's going to affect every federal agency and how rules and regulations are interpreted. The wiki link Marcus posted above explains it pretty well. Personally I have been on the abusive end of the EPA back in the mid 2000's. I won't go into details but it was an abuse of the Clean Water Act and "navigable waterways of the United States". Long story short the EPA at the time claimed every ditch was a navigable waterway of the US and under their regulation. Cost us $55K in fines and lawyers fees. If they try similar now one could fight and win. This ruling affects heavy equipment and construction quite a bit and is a worthy discussion. However like other things governmental it can get into the gutter with politics that have nothing to do with the actual law. Please refrain from getting political. Thanks in advance.
Yes, I fought the Navigable Waterways, and Waters of the United States thing, for over 2 years back in the 90's. This had to do with wetlands, which were really active mines. A bunch of egotistical morons at those alphabet agencies Thank goodness we were mostly in Texas and Oklahoma, so the state people were not quite as bad.
Once this settles out, you should sue to get that money back, with attorney fees, court costs, interest, and inflation of course.
Waiting to see how it shakes out. That is a possibility.
Same here our state is easier to work with. When we got "hit" the EPA and ADEM (Alabama dept of enviro management) were in a pissing match over regulations. So the EPA comes in and overshadows ADEM for a couple of months. We had a 70 acre project under development and it rained heavily the night before so no one was on the job when the duo makes a site visit. They drove the state vehicle into the site, turned around in the mud, went back out the construction entrance, got mud on the road, took a picture and fined us for that. Inadequate construction entrance. Just one of several items. It took them 3-4 months to write a report and get it back to us. It's not about the environment or 1 - they wouldn't have driven on a muddy site and 2 - if what they saw was so bad, then why wait 3-4 months to write a report? Oh yeah mud stains, not actual mud on the silt fence, means it has failed....
This will have a huge impact for Alaska where 60% of the land mass in federally owned. It’s mind boggling how this will play out. The commentary will be fascinating to follow and the timing is perfect for the recent projects and projected projects.
I've seen a bunch of people complaining on tic Tok about this comparing it to roe v wade. I think they are bots you literally cannot think this is a bad thing. I think the bots are just trying to pair it with roe v wade so communists get upset at the supreme Court. This is probably the best decision of our lifetime and after that one is probably the bruin decision. Clarence Thomas is putting in work. I've heard that there is not a lot of law around the emissions, so one just now needs to sue epa over emission regulations and get them struck down, every overstep will have to get sued first so it will take awhile.
Sackett vs. Epa was another important decision.
Yes. That one gutted the EPA's stance that the ditch in front of your yard is a navigable water way of the US because the water eventually flows into a bigger ditch that goes to a creek that goes to a river. Basically the EPA had control over your backyard in their opinion.
A really good overview in the first 5 minutes. Basically the agency gets to decide how much power it has...lol that actually really good description
Nice to see people waking up.
How many on here were alive and understand how the Chevron decision came about 40 years ago. Don't look it up--just those that were around then if they remember. There was allot behind it. * I'm not going to answer it.
Big companies could fight the agencies on their decisions, normal people cannot
It sounds like the EPA or other groups can't make up their own rules as they wish anymore. Certain people on a power trip could find a fault or fabricate a fault (to justify their job) without merit like CM's example above. If a contractor isn't accessing a muddy site why would anybody sane enter it? If these same inspectors caught someone leaving the site and making a mess on the road, they would likely fine them but it's OK for them to do it and I doubt they cleaned up the mess they made. It would make sense if a project was being done and dump trucks or other vehicles entering and leaving the site left mud and other debris like rocks or gravel on the road. Companies do get fined for it here as they should. Responsible contractors will have street sweepers or power brooms keeping the roads clean if the work is progressing. What's interesting is I don't think farmers are held to same standards. I've drove out to my property many times and there are stretches of road just plastered with mud and dirt from trucks and tractors coming off a muddy field. I realize they may not have a choice but should still clean it up as soon as possible. Even a loader with a bolt on edge could clean up gobs of mud and dirt from the road.
Yes. We had to go to the big Federal building in Atlanta for our "hearing". Once passing through security that were armed like a SWAT team we finally made it to the 20th something floor. Across the table were the accuser (inspector), the judge (his superior) and the executioner (the EPA's attorney). We pleaded our case for an hour or so looking over the pictures and discussing the accusations. Then the EPA attorney closes her binder, puts her hands together and says "We do not agree with that and that is what court is for". This meeting is over. We were into it at that time for $55k with our own attorney's fees. Going to Federal court would cost well into six figures before the trial started so we did the only logical thing and caved. Countless others across the nation have been abused in the same way and I hope this wrangles in some of this abuse by the Federal government. WD because it's not about the environment - it's about power and control. Otherwise they wouldn't have done that. FWIW we put some 6x6's and gates up at both entrances after that.
We can't start a job here until the environmental stuff is looked after. Erosion control, buffer zones, silt fences. There is a small window of time when working in waterways. Fish capture. For the most part, fines are not that heavy. We once placed rocks into a river system for fish. It couldn't be done when the fish were spawning. Fisheries and oceans came up with the procedure, and it was going to cost the sports lodge over a million, but the fine for not following their plans was only $250 000. In the end, it cost him around $100 000 plus the fine. As long as you are not dumping oil in the water, most officers are happy if you just clean up your mess.
If that wasn't the fox guarding the hen house, I don't know what was. We say you broke this regulation. You say, no. Fight in court, the gov't calls their expert who happens to be employed by the agency who is charging you with a "made up" crime based on their interpretation of the actual regulation. You lost before you even made it to the docket.
Pretty much and they are using unlimited tax dollars to prosecute you - they have all the money they need to win.
It's interesting how here they are looking to punch a highway bypass road into the area by my land, which is all wetland, swamp, couple un named ponds and a small lake. All in a 50yr flood zone off a creek too. Prime moose and water fowl ground. Basically was told the rules don't apply to the .gov "do what I what" We had to get permits to cut a fence line to fence in a couple parcels, about 300 acres total because part of it was swampy. Army Corp of Engineers, etc. Took almost a year for the ok of a section that took us a day to clear. Basically a ~20ft wide swath. Enough room to fence, get vehicles around to maintain the fence and mow
It is a big power trip for some. Commercial vehicle inspectors can be the same way. They will find something wrong or at least something to complain about.
I built some watershed lakes. The Mitigation procedure to satisfy the clean water act got to the point they quilt building them. So I have been affected and appreciate the frustration. At the same time global warming is a very real thing. Also polluting is very real. I don't know the answers but this is going to be a step back and make both worse rather than better. Frequency and severity of storms is rising. Insurance is going to get challenging. And now a lot of regulations are going to be trashed inflaming the problem.
Here we go!
Maybe this will make carb STFU .
Yeah but... CARB is not EPA and not federal bureaucracy. It would take state sanctions to tighten them up, I believe
I'm not touching this with a 10ft pole.....
I think this overturn is great. Sure it may clog up Congress with a bunch of decisions but that, in my eyes, is way better than the 3 letter agencies intentionally writing confusing regulations so they are obliged to make the "laws".
One member writes a opposite opinion that doesn't jive with everyone else on here---- and it automatically renders a {here we go} statement}. The reason nothing gets done anymore.
Some jackwagon on MSNBC said this was undermining democracy. Hindering unaccountable bureaucrats undermines democracy how?
I'll believe global warming when the people that push them stop flying in a private jet and ban private jets all together, they also should ban water bottles. This thread is not political and I and the moderators don't want it that way. Hopefully the first one and now mine the only two. Chevron deference getting struck down is a win for everyone, and anyone trying to push politics on it are clearly evil.
The younger crowd blames my mother's generation for the state of the environment. She says they reused everything, and there was very little waste. The environmental crowd wouldn't know what to do with a cloth diaper. Things are a changin though. For the first time in my adult life, a tornado touched down in this area. It was in a wooded area, but it could have been bad
The earth has been changing before the start of time. We little peons are practicing hubris if we thought we make a difference. That doesn’t mean we couldn’t do things cleaner and better but people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Might as well close and lock this thread. There's no way it isn't political at its core. I don't see how you can ignore the elephant in the room.
Chevron has nothing to do with the environment, if you want to talk about that start a new thread.
Bad law and regulation is bad law and regulation. You are the one that is bringing up politics so if this topic bothers you, then maybe not read or post in this thread. Agreed. Anyone wanting to talk about the climate can start another thread where it will inevitably go into the gutter very quickly and one of us Mods can send it to the basement. This court decision will have a rippling impact on the construction and heavy equipment industry in a good way for years to come IMO. So this is an important topic of discussion and we should be adult enough to have it.
It's not political at its core At its core it's been precedent that a regulatory agency that has the power to Levi fines and write the rules as the administration of that agency wants done is to not be questioned and is for your own good. This means the core issue is were is the accountability and to whom is it. The politics come from jack wagons trying to tell normal folks that they have the solution and if we give them the power they will fix it and the guy with the other point of view is wrong and should be discredited because the first guy is smarter by his own definition I don't care what side of the isle your beliefs are on the regulations put in place. Accountability doesn't hurt anything to do with the regulations or the need for them just the expedience of how they got there
The follow up questions I have is based on what is rumored to be changing on new emission laws and weather those bench marks are attainable what kind of cost are being forced onto the average everyday person because the cost has to be passed on and if the new regulations are going to require an even stricter tolerance for engineering and operating conditions then the failure rate of emissions control devices will increase My question is at what point does the regulation cause more of the overall impact it's trying to mitigate
That was one of my first thoughts as well. What's going to happen to the new emissions standards coming down the pipeline? How are they going to be affected? Or are they going to be affected? All I know is I would like the $8K+ I spent on failed DEF sensors on our 325FL back.
I want the carbon foot print back from failed emissions devices
That's been going on since Archimedes invented the death ray.
Good, they will have something constructive to do for awhile . . .
Someone just needs to sue the EPA saying their regs don't conform to the statues. I saw a tic Tok a guy said he lost his job at Tyson as he made sure they were complying with the FDA and he blamed the scotus, yeah right man, I'm sick of people making this political.
After this ruling I'm sure the lawsuits will come, but it will require someone with standing, someone who can prove they have been injured by given alphabet agency rulings in order for a lawsuit to continue in court.
That's not going to be very hard, several people I'm this thread already does.
It's going to be painful and expensive for the alphabet agencies to comply, but not like they did not do painful and expensive things to everyone else for the last 50 years.
I agree the CWA and it's enforcement got out of hand, with hard working people suffering the consequences. IE regulatory overreach. I don't think the chevron ruling was the answer. This following is just a thought about the chevron ruling and the FDA I remember studies and adds paid for by tobacco companies that claimed cigarettes didn't cause cancer. Eventually that was debunked, but it took years because of the revenue the cigarettes generated. Smoking in the USA is about 1/2 less from 1965 to 2016 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette ) of what it used to be. From the same article some parts of the world have seen a 1/3 increase since 2000. Have all the advertising restrictions and other regulations regarding selling or promoting cigarettes been written into law or has congress gave the FDA that authority? With the new ruling would the regulations for cigarettes have to be written into law? How about all the food and label regulations? To me the fox is conglomerates that will do what makes them the most money, regardless of health, safety, or environmental cost and they are being released.
This feels like a taxation without representation issue also, going back to AzIron says up top. It also feels like it'll depend entirely on who our representatives are, and whether they can overturn the overturn, or just decide to vote with whatever the 3 letters want. More lobbying? Is it called lobbying when it's a gov't organization or just money laundering and buying influence? Suing people/organizations seems like the way America puts its foot down, for better or worse, but it seems to work. Suing these joints out of business seems cool in a lot of respects. I could see the FDA/CDC being sued out of existence (or at least back to what they should be doing) over some mandates and lockdowns of late.
How could you sue an entity out of existence that has unlimited resources. You, me and the other guy, we all have finite income available to us, be it savings or investments. Those assets would be liquidated in short order trying to knock the gov't entity down a peg, let alone the idea of taking it out of the equation. Gun rights groups have been trying to abolish the ATF&E for decades for their murderous overreach. They look at it as a "hold my beer" moment. We're Stuck with what we got, the best we can hope for is reform. Congress can't pass meaningful legislation unless it's somehow culturally or ethnically driven. There is no common sense up there, save for a few.
The over reach gets out of control because the lobbyists go to regulatory agency's and get rules put in that would never pass congress and that is the ball game there because that's not a representation style of gov So basically main street usa doesn't have access to influence regulation that is run by unelected officials like special interest does because there is no accountability and it takes resources to get ideas through the door of an agency so only we'll funded special interest gets things done Now if we think putting this back to congress will somehow make gov over reach and unintended consequences stop or that anything is actually going to get done that's probably wishful thinking there is a reason a group of representatives is called a congress cause it's a house of monkeys
Maybe now would be an excellent time for this guy to learn some skill that is actually useful and could generate an income without being propped up the government . . .
The irony of these decisions regarding the chevron decision is over the top.
I see it as congress had abdicated its duty. Their job is to create law. They chose, instead, to create legal framework and let bureaucrats fill in the blanks. Which is, defacto law creation and a direct violation of the Constitution. If congress can not be bothered to create specific and complete laws, it couldn't have been that important in the first place. " 3. Nondelegation . Article I, Section 1 vests all legislative powers in Congress, which means the President and the Supreme Court cannot assert legislative authority. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952). This marks an important separation of powers between the departments of the federal government. It also has been interpreted to include a principle of nondelegation, that the people’s representatives in Congress must make the law, rather than delegate that power to the executive or judicial branch. For most of American history, judges and commentators have assumed that Congress cannot “delegate” legislative authority and the Supreme Court has located this rule in Article I, Section 1. See, e.g., Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc . (2001). Individual Justices have opined that the nondelegation doctrine ought to be treated as a serious limitation on Congress’s authority. (For example, see Justice Thomas’s dissent in Whitman .)"
For those outside of the US this may put a handle on the topic. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1807513128479150478
For those that don't twit..... For those who don't understand what Chevron Deference is, and why SCOTUS ended it, here's the long and short of it: A family fishing company, Loper Bright Enterprises, was being driven out of business, because they couldn't afford the $700 per day they were being charged by the National Marine Fisheries Service to monitor their company. The thing is, federal law doesn't authorize NMFS to charge businesses for this. They just decided to start doing it in 2013. Why did they think they could away with just charging people without any legal authorization? Because in 1984, in the Chevron decision, the Supreme Court decided that regulatory agencies were the "experts" in their field, and the courts should just defer to their "interpretation" of the law. So for the past 40 years, federal agencies have been able to "interpret" laws to mean whatever they want, and the courts had to just go with it. It was called Chevron Deference, and it put bureaucrats in charge of the country. It's how the OHSA was able to decide that everyone who worked for a large company had to get the jab, or be fired. No law gave them that authority, they just made it up. It's how the ATF was able to decide a piece of plastic was a "machine gun". It's how the NCRS was able to decide that a small puddle was a "protected wetlands". It's how out-of-control agencies have been able to create rules out of thin air, and force you to comply, and the courts had to simply defer to them, because they were the "experts". Imagine if your local police could just arrest you, for any reason, and no judge or jury was allowed to determine if you'd actually committed a crime or not. Just off to jail you go. That's what Chevron Deference was. It was not only blatantly unconstitutional, it caused immeasurable harm to everyone. Thankfully, it's now gone. We haven't even begun to feel the effects of this decision in the courts. It will be used, for years to come, to roll back federal agencies, and we'll all be better of for it. And that's why politicians and corporate media are freaking out about it.
x.com x.com I saw this and had to share. It's a little long but seems about right.
Thanks for the explanation! (have never heard of the Chevron Deference) was trying to understand what this was about & what the implications are for the US.
So I am curious and am genuinely asking of people that disagree with the overturning of this decision what is going to happen now that will be bad what are the unintended consequences that are within reason because we all no on the fringe of morality and greed somone will exploit something But for the average person how will this reversal negatively impact their livelihood
You answered your own question. livelihood should be----just life in general.
Your post is kind of hard to read.
Doesn't it help end the exploiters? Sorta like a taste of liberty? Oh yeah and happy 4th.
Instead of a bunch of vague, nothing-burger responses that are really meant to tease, why don't you actually type something that will add to this thread? Or, are you happy just sitting across the street watching the house burn down when you saw who started it? I suspect your view of this is in someway related to your opinion of deregulation of trucking 40-odd years ago. People like us that were either not alive, or never taught why things happened the way they did would really like to know so we don't things up along the way, since we are now in the driver's seat. It's a very similar situation why a lot of small, volunteer fire departments fall apart. The old guys have a chip on their shoulder when they can't cut the mustard anymore, and the young guys start taking over. Instead of sticking around and helping them through their mistakes, they throw up their hands, walk away, and bitch to each other on how {this would have never happened if I'D been in charge}. Well, guess what. The next generation of leaders now has their hands on the wheel, and their foot on the throttle, and technology on our side. You can either help, or get out of the way. Sorry, not sorry.
A perspective from a younger old timer... I'm not entirely sure what Truck Shop meant in his post but this is my take on what I think you are saying Shimmy. I'm not that much of an old guy (47) but I've been in my field for 28 years, as of a couple days ago. It's a bonkers field, where we make things that shouldn't work. I've seen a lot of people come and go who try to work, at the factory I'm in lower middle management in, and will not listen to what the old timers say or suggest. This isn't just the younger folks either. I've seen managers 15 years older than me, who were likely quite good at running other factories, come here and fail spectacularly. Why? They (of all ages) were too smart or too good to learn the stuff that we're doing, learn how challenging it is, learn that the people make a difference, learn that a box that only has 3 major components can still fail hundreds of ways. You (I) get jaded. I watched this manager make twice as much money as me and make mistake after mistake. If the old timers don't feel respected, listened to, or learned from we tend to throw our hands up and say "Eff it." What other options are there. I think the old timers would love to have hat-in-hand youngsters come in and learn and listen to subtleties. My son (bad on me, I know) is one of these. I try impart on him aged wisdom, as he turns into a young man. His response to everything I say is "yeah, I know" or "that's true," no questions back or eagerness to really understand, just basically dismiss. Now, maybe I'm misreading that, maybe it's just a communication difference, but it doesn't see to be when I see choices/mistakes made that we've discussed.
Shimmy-------here's a alphabet agency---BIOYA. lol
Well this thread has run it's course because the children here on HEF just cannot resist to be jack asses to one another. Shame. Good topic.