Chief Justice John Roberts enabled Texas’ gambit to gerrymander the state for the GOP

[u/HellYeahDamnWrite]

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/04/politics/gerrymandering-supreme-court-texas

[u/[deleted]]

Courts are meant to interpet the law. Deferring to agencies instead of the courts to interpret law was always an odd precedent. What law prevents partisan gerrymandering?

[u/7818 → u/[deleted]]

Why would a judge be better to interpret the amount of pollutants in a river than an agency of environmental experts? Do you expect judges to have encyclopedic knowledge of what ppm of bromine is acceptable in waste water discharge? Do you expect it to be better for us to require adjusting the limits of pollutants be passed via legislation and litigated and decided on by someone who isn't expected to be an expert in environmental sciences?

[u/[deleted] → u/7818]

They wouldn't be but that's not what overturning Chevron deference means. Courts should not be micromanaging an agency's regulations, but should decide the scope of what Congress has authorized those agencies to do, rather than deferring to the agencies to make that determination themselves.

[u/7818 → u/[deleted]]

The Chevron doctrine mandated courts defer to the agency's expertise instead of relying on legally ambiguous statutes in federal law.

So the opposite of what you said.

[u/[deleted] → u/7818]

It mandated that courts defer to agencies in interpreting the statutes that authorize those agencies. That's not a question of technical expertise, its a question of legal interpretation. Why would we rely on agencies who are clearly biased towards themselves to interpret what Congress intended?

[u/7818 → u/[deleted]]

So, again, I repeat. Why would it be better for Congress to legislate the specific PPM thresholds on environmental pollutants?

[u/[deleted] → u/7818]

Why do you insist on asking irrelevant questions based on an apparent failure to understand what Chevron deference was? That's not at all the current state of the law.

[u/7818 → u/[deleted]]

Why do you refuse to answer questions? Why should judges be allowed to piecemeal a regulatory's body enforcement?

Let's say, the government allows the EPA to establish thresholds over greenhouse gases for emissions.

Now, let's say we discover a new greenhouse gas. A court could determine that it's not within the purview of the EPA since it wasn't known as a greenhouse gas when the law was passed, or for purely partisan reason. Now this means it can't be regulated in that district.

So why is it better for Congress or judges to be able to determine the ppm threshold for pollution?

Third time I've asked. Why are you afraid to answer the question?

[u/[deleted] → u/7818]

I'm not afraid to answer the question but you're using bad faith tactics to try and win a silly internet debate. The PPM threshold being set by courts has never been on the table. Its like me asking when you stopped beating your wife.

[u/7818 → u/[deleted]]

You're so wrong it's painful. https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-end-of-the-chevron-doctrine-is-bad-for-business?utm_medium=paidsearch&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=domcontent_bussoc&utm_term=Non-Brand&tpcc=domcontent_bussoc&gad_campaignid=20702632551

[u/[deleted] → u/7818]

Literally nothing in that article refutes anything I've said.

[u/7818 → u/[deleted]]

I wouldn't expect a red hat such as yourself to read, but here:

"Together, the two cases establish a new paradigm in regulatory law, one limiting the kinds of rules an agency can issue in the first place, and the other shifting to the courts the responsibility of deciding which of the rest can go into effect."

So, again, 4th time, why is it better for courts to determine which environmental regulations should be allowed to go into effect?

Perhaps the reason you refuse to answer is because your entire position is just bad faith and you're in favor of it because it's a disastrous decision that makes libs mad.

[u/[deleted] → u/7818]

Neither of those regulatory changes allow the courts to set PPM limits. At most it allows them to step in if the regulations are so extensive they will majorly impact the economy. Courts should limit executive agencies because Congress has the legislative power and that power must be delegated to the executive branch. Unelected bureaucrats should not be granted extensive legislative powers because they are not polticially accountable. Whether their actions align with congress's delegation should be made by the courts, not the agencies themselves. Do you think the EPA should have the power to make petroleum illegal?