On Wednesday, four justices vowed to overturn one of the most important and unprecedented judicial votes in Supreme Court history. As Equity's Ketanji Brown Jackson said in his arguments Wednesday, Chevron urged the judge to make a very important statement: "When is the court going to decide that this is not my decision?" However, the four judges of the court did not agree - Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch
and Brett Kavanaugh - recognized "Lopezin" Wednesday. case "Ning Business v." None of the three people who were appointed under the law majority of the court are open to big money transfers. In both cases, the injured parties are expected to take action before federal judges. In order for Chevron to win and survive, the Beauty Division will have to make an argument to persuade Roberts and Barrett to stay with them. Among other things, he has more than
once expressed concern about the potential impact of overturning one of the Supreme Court's decisions in the last century. Elena Kagan of Equity magazine reports that Chevron has been cited in 17,000 lower court decisions, and Barrett expressed concern about what would happen if all of these decisions were challenged. For his part, Roberts downplayed
Wednesday's debate and downplayed Chevron's importance. But it seems likely that Roberts and Barrett will choose not to transfer the most powerful power in American history to a branch of government that does not participate in elections. Congress often passes laws appointing decision-makers to government agencies. For example, the Cleanliness Act
requires certain processing plants to use the "best sewage disposal system" available - leaving it up to the EPA to determine which "best system" is at any given time. When Congress delegates policy-making authority, the question that arises is whether a federal law authorizes an agency to demand an action, which is not always clear. Many activists,
engineers and researchers believe that job development is "the best framework for reducing travel" and the government should seek to manage factories that import their technology. Each device is also incompatible with parallel devices, so governments require official devices to use one of the devices, but not both. Chevron recognizes that, in this case, it is not
clear whether the power plants require the use of one device or another device, and one must have the authority to determine which device is called the "system good" for reducing emissions. Chevron argues that the final decision rests with the government (in this case, the EPA) and not the courts. One of them is that "judges are not experts" in the complex issues that have arisen in government agencies. Another basic principle of Chevron is that federal
agencies are more subject to majority rule than federal courts. The Chevron court held that "although the office is not accountable to the people," the essence of the office is that it is a political representative accountable to the president who holds it to the electorate. Therefore, "it is absolutely necessary for this political branch of government to follow this path." Although there are many federal laws that allocate various requirements to agencies, this power is spread across 15 different cabinets.
Post a Comment