So as long as corporate polluters have enough grease to stop a single Senator or GOP committee chair from changing existing law, the XYZ chemical will never be banned?

How is this good for the American citizen again? They get more cheap goods that will give them cancer in 20 years?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47792423)

and wouldn't companies sue in red districts to begin with?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47792568)

*honks RV horn*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47793069)

Before, the FDA could ban XYZ if the statute was silent or ambiguous and banning it was a reasonable interpretation of the statute. As long as the interpretation was reasonable, that literally ended the court's inquiry. Now the court will work out the ambiguity itself, just like it would in any other case, rather than automatically accepting one party's proposed interpretation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47792498)

With or without Chevron, the agency could ban formaldehyde in milk. That's unambiguously a harmful chemical in food of the sort Congress meant, even if nobody in Congress actually had formaldehyde or milk in mind.

Now suppose the agency bans propellant in ammunition available to consumers. The argument is that such ammunition is a "consumer product" and the propellant is a harmful chemical--not on the basis that it is toxic or carcinogenic under any normal usage to the purchaser, but on the basis that it permits the bullet to cause death or injury to others when the gun is fired.

Under Chevron, the courts would be more deferential to the agency--if it is "reasonable" to construe "harmful chemical" in a "consumer product" to include propellant in consumer-available ammunition, because the propellant enables the ammunition to cause death or injury when fired, then the agency's ban would be upheld.

Post-Chevron, the courts will themselves resolve the ambiguity as to whether harmful chemical in a consumer product means a chemical that allows a product available to consumers to operate as intended, and thereby potentially cause harm to third parties.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47792520)

I don't think the words you ineptly put down even count as an explanation, honestly. Pathetic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47792536)

Your hypo confuses the legal issues involved because (1) such a case would most likely be determined on constitutional grounds and the court would rule against the agency without considering the reasonableness of its statutory interpretation; and (2) even looking past that issue, the agency interpretation is unreasonable (or very close) so the result would be the same whether or not chevron deference is applied.

What you have done (to a lesser degree) in dispensing with the reasonableness inquiry is like saying chevron deference might result in a statute regulating "food cans" being applied to big ol' titties because they can be referred to as "cans" and contain milk. But chevron deference never required the court to accept a completely retarded statutory interpretation just because it is literalistic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47792644)

Sometimes I wonder if its a distinction without a distance but its almost like chevron was the NBA where it permitted agencies not just to do what the law said but then to take two steps plus a euro step without being called for traveling

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47792601)

This idea that Chevron has somehow prevented constant litigation just doesn't seem right to me. I guess we're about to find out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47792740)

lettign some faggot retard agency run by niggas and kikes dictate shit was insane

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47792652)

And Chevron wasn't a big deal in the briefing or in our decision. Sure, it was brought up, but the case came down to my judge's view on the merits.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47793078)

Was a pretty clear indication that they knew it was something for Congress to decide and represented a power grab by the executive. Granted a nationwide injunction and we were easily affirmed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47793449)

- they took the class in law school and got good theoretical instruction but never touched any of this shit in actual practice

- they never took the class or they had a shitprof who taught them that "admin law" = the APA + Chevron.

- they haven't read a recent SCOTUS case where something that smells even remotely like Chevron deference might have been suggested to the justices.

- they don't know why Breyer was getting so angry during oral arguments right before he quit

- they don't know why Breyer quit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47793736)

This Chevron abolition is pretty much the opposite of arbitration- a SCOTUS which can control its own docket/workload is telling judges who can't: "we've got a whole bunch of new, highly complex cases for you- enjoy!"

I don't know much about administrative law, but I do know federal judges very well, and I can tell you that most of them are not gonna like this new caseload addition and so are gonna err on the side of the agencies. That way, they will get a reputation as a judge who doesn't overturn regs lightly and plaintiffs will file this shit somewhere else.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5547701&forum_id=2...id#47793779)