Marijuana is less harmful and less prone to abuse than first thought and should be reclassified to reflect that, the Department of Health and Human Services now says.
Well get used to it as the Supreme Court has begun to lay down the precedent needed to completely do away with Chevron deference.
In other words, they’re doing away with the authority that gives federal regulatory agencies their purview to set regulations. You know, the public servants who have dedicated their lives/educations/careers/etc. to a field of study?
They’re replacing those decisions with ones made by judges and politicians.
I much prefer “bureaucrats” (literally just another word for those public servants) make those decisions rather than billionaires and politicians.
I’ve seen plenty walked out the door in my days off working my field in government. At the bargaining level it is hard for an employee to be fired but not impossible and it takes repeat offenses but this is just my own experience in my field. The worst that could happen is someone gets is someone gets information they were not suppose to (UNAX). They handle that on a case by case basis. You don’t want a worker that can be fired at the drop of a hat when working for the public.
good. Enforcement should not decide law. that is a clear conflict of interest, in their favor. For an extreme example, you absolutely don’t want a police officer deciding citizen’s rights.
So you’re okay with a politician with no knowledge, process, expectations, or regulation in the area in question making things like medical decisions based only on political lines for you instead of a bureaucracy of beurocrats and medical professionals who dedicate their lives and careers to solving these problems?
How does this make any sense?
These organizations literally formed because politicians are incompetent towards these problems, and gathering of experts are required to evaluate, developer effective process, and then solve for them.
No, that’s exactly what dropping Chevron would mean. Judges get to step in on any decision by a regulatory body. Right now, they are mostly barred from doing so beyond making sure procedure was followed and is within their purview.
I’m guessing they mean the DEA shouldn’t both decide drug classification and enforce those same classifications.
That can be fixed by other means, though, such as by giving the FDA classification rights that the DEA then enforces. Killing Chevron deference would only make things worse; the court now gets to decide and enforce.
The flip side is that more progressive judges can also second guess decisions. EPA says that PFAS is fine and we’re not going to regulate it? The court could step in on that. FCC says net neutrality doesn’t need to exist? The court could step in on that.
Killing Chevron only makes sense for conservatives if they think they will own the courts indefinitely. They probably thought they would during the Trump Administration, but he lost the last election, and the Supreme Court massively overstepped with abortion rights and caused their side a whole bunch of new problems. They may not be so sure of their ability to capture the judicial system as they were a few years back. A lot depends on how the next election pans out.
Well get used to it as the Supreme Court has begun to lay down the precedent needed to completely do away with Chevron deference.
In other words, they’re doing away with the authority that gives federal regulatory agencies their purview to set regulations. You know, the public servants who have dedicated their lives/educations/careers/etc. to a field of study?
They’re replacing those decisions with ones made by judges and politicians.
I much prefer “bureaucrats” (literally just another word for those public servants) make those decisions rather than billionaires and politicians.
That’s precisely what experts are for.
Yes. The bureaucrats are the experts. They’re the same people.
Not necessarily. Its just about impossible to fire someone from a government job, even if they’ve demonstrated incompetence and lack of expertise.
I’ve seen plenty walked out the door in my days off working my field in government. At the bargaining level it is hard for an employee to be fired but not impossible and it takes repeat offenses but this is just my own experience in my field. The worst that could happen is someone gets is someone gets information they were not suppose to (UNAX). They handle that on a case by case basis. You don’t want a worker that can be fired at the drop of a hat when working for the public.
good. Enforcement should not decide law. that is a clear conflict of interest, in their favor. For an extreme example, you absolutely don’t want a police officer deciding citizen’s rights.
So you’re okay with a politician with no knowledge, process, expectations, or regulation in the area in question making things like medical decisions based only on political lines for you instead of a bureaucracy of beurocrats and medical professionals who dedicate their lives and careers to solving these problems?
How does this make any sense?
These organizations literally formed because politicians are incompetent towards these problems, and gathering of experts are required to evaluate, developer effective process, and then solve for them.
Damn that’s a big strawman
It’s not a strawman, it’s literally what is happening in the US right now. It’s called Regulatory Capture.
No, that’s exactly what dropping Chevron would mean. Judges get to step in on any decision by a regulatory body. Right now, they are mostly barred from doing so beyond making sure procedure was followed and is within their purview.
I’m not sure I understand. Do you mind explaining your position?
I’m guessing they mean the DEA shouldn’t both decide drug classification and enforce those same classifications.
That can be fixed by other means, though, such as by giving the FDA classification rights that the DEA then enforces. Killing Chevron deference would only make things worse; the court now gets to decide and enforce.
The flip side is that more progressive judges can also second guess decisions. EPA says that PFAS is fine and we’re not going to regulate it? The court could step in on that. FCC says net neutrality doesn’t need to exist? The court could step in on that.
Killing Chevron only makes sense for conservatives if they think they will own the courts indefinitely. They probably thought they would during the Trump Administration, but he lost the last election, and the Supreme Court massively overstepped with abortion rights and caused their side a whole bunch of new problems. They may not be so sure of their ability to capture the judicial system as they were a few years back. A lot depends on how the next election pans out.