The harsh response of left-wing commentators to last week’s Supreme Court reversal of the Chevron decision reveals more about the Left than about the courts. “The Supreme Court just made a massive power grab,” blusters Ian Millhiser for Vox. “Supreme Court executes massive power grab from executive branch,” agrees Kate Riga for TPM.
“Fill her up with Chevron Supreme.” Photo by Joe Ravi.
In 1981, the Environmental Protection Agency under Ronald Reagan changed the definition of the word “source” (as in “source of pollution”) in one of its regulations, effectively allowing industries to pollute more with less oversight. In a case known as Chevron Oil v. the Natural Resources Defense Council, the NRDC challenged this definition and won at the district and appeals court levels. But the Supreme Court overturned this, ruling that courts should give “deference” to federal agencies in how they interpret the law. This became known as the Chevron decision and it has hampered citizen efforts to monitor bureaucracies ever since.
Congress cannot “account for every eventuality in law,” say the decision’s defenders, so it delegates its authority to the “experts” in the bureaucracies. “Judges are not experts” in fields such as pollution, said the Supreme Court in the Chevron decision, so they should defer to the people Congress and the administration has appointed as the experts who are, defenders say, “accountable to the public via the president.”
While that may sound good in a political science classroom, real life is radically different. As former NRDC attorney David Schoenbrod showed in his book, Power Without Responsibility: How Congress Abuses the People Through Delegation, Congress often passes vague laws because it doesn’t want to take the political heat for making actual decisions. Instead, it lets the bureaucracies make those decisions, allowing members of Congress to then say, “It’s not my fault; I never expected the agency to interpret the law that way.”
Moreover, the idea that the agencies are accountable to the public via the president is a joke. Thanks to civil service rules, presidents have almost no power over the agencies they theoretically oversee. When Trump supporters proposed that the president be allowed to fire up to 50,000 leaders of the 3 million federal agency employees, John Oliver lambasted them as if federal workers deserve constitutional protection. Again, Oliver’s implicit assumption is that the employees are the experts and not even the president should be allowed to question them.
Most important, government agencies are not disinterested experts. Instead, their funding and power is often closely associated with the decisions they make. Over time, the people within an agency who believe, based on their supposed expertise, in policies that increase the agency’s budget and power tend to be the ones who are promoted until eventually the agency is working primarily for its own self interest, not for the public.
If ever there was a massive power grab, it was the Chevron decision itself, not the reversal of that decision. The decision gave federal bureaucracies power to rule with almost no public oversight. Congress, for example, rarely reverses a bureaucratic regulation.
The president has some power to write the rules but can’t always make the agencies comply if they disagree. I know of several times when the president ordered the Forest Service to do something and the agency said, “Right away, Mr. President” — and then ignored him. The final straw was the Chevron decision, which greatly reduced the ability of members of the public to challenge the agencies, especially since some courts heavily penalize anyone who challenges a government agency and loses.
Anyone who thinks that government bureaucrats are experts who should be given deference will quickly revise their opinion if they ever get involved with agency planning or decision making. I made my career challenging the experts in federal bureaucracies. During the 1970s and 1980s timber wars, I soon learned that government agencies like the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management were not disinterested experts but were just as likely as the outside interest groups to distort or ignore scientific evidence in order to justify decisions that enhanced their budgets.
My research was even cited in a circuit court decision for why that court should not give deference to a government agency when the outcome of that agency’s decisions can have an impact on its budget. “Decisions may be made,” said the court, “not because they are in the best interest of the American people but because they benefit the Forest Service’s fiscal interest.” (Strangely, that circuit court decision was overturned by the Supreme Court not because of Chevron but because the court concluded that the Forest Service’s decision to clearcut 95 percent of a particular national forest was not really a “decision.” I wonder how today’s Supreme Court would view that ruling.)
While my work was often successful, that success was made a lot more difficult because of Chevron. The faith some people have in the omniscience of government experts demonstrates that they are either part of the so-called deep state or they are out of touch with reality.
Reversing the Chevron decision was not the court grabbing power for itself. It was the court returning power to the public to question agency rulings and show why those rulings may be wrong.
Industry does pollute…. of course it does. But it produces products by which aimed at consumer to utilize which in turn broadcasts the pollution. What industry has done is divert pollution to the consumer.
A jerry can of gasoline doesn’t really pollute… unless You use it or spill it.
CHINA’ CO2 emissions now exceed all developed nations put together.
There’s nothing wrong with pollution rules. But everyone pollutes, As long as China and India are exempt from any serious pollution violations their economy can grow without restrictions but law diminishing returns, environmental harm they wreak on themselves will cost more than what they gain. Where as the US, Europe and Japan have to operate with hands tied, never the less improving efficiency saved Lives. China doesn’t care about this… they’re a society that spent thousands of years throwing lower caste into oblivion to serve purpose.
The movie Ghostbuster’s the villain or sub-villain in the series was both academia and GOvernment regulators. Namely EPA. The film portray’s EPA not in a “Bad” light, simply antagonistic to their business. Story of little guy being pushed around by government official who has federal and local police under his control. In fairness, they did possess hazardous materials in city limits. But the EPA could have spent their time going after much larger polluters. Moral of the story, little guy often pushed around by government official because they have no clout. By contrast, the “Big Guy” namely REAL polluters; usually have them in their pockets or simply pay a fine.
Another film I watch that’s an environmental movie, whether you believe it or not. “BioDome” yes a dopey stoner comedy. However the film pokes fun at academics, scientific industrial complex and Environmental movement especially among young. In the film to lackadaisy blue collar slackers are locked in a sealed environment (ala Biosphere 2 a real science experiment that failed twice) due sheer laziness and disregard, contaminate a grand experiment of maintaining a synchronized environment without toxicity or waste; which in turn; convert and open the Dome to party; enthralling local youngster populace to trash the place. When the scientists are pushed brink, their experiment largely over and one driven to homicidal insanity, they flee at first pitch. In end, Character by Stephen Baldwin; gives a passionate plea, and demand they all stay and restore the dome to full health, arguing that the real world itself is currently not a pristine environment either (and results extortion by locking them in); faced with prospect trapped in dome they cant escape and prospect dying starvation because their environment doesn’t produce enough oxygen/food; they in time successfully summon work ethic and ingenius jerryrigging with enormous amount hard work restore the dome to ecological health. The film critiques corporate greenwashing and media enticing so called Green idealism. The film attacks needless scientific propensity, the scientists in the dome believe they’re gonna save the world, but they spend an entire year isolating themself in an environment that’s already pristine. Portrays college students as overly educated, media and popularity/awareness focused but not particularly work oriented. Biodome is greatest environmental movie, because it parodies environmental movies.
Environmental “Consultant” Paul dorfman stated “Fact”
fossil fuels have far greater tonnage extracted from Earth than mineral demands for so called “Green technology” minerals.
https://x.com/dorfman_p/status/1807517599082627264
What he fails to take account is difference between energy and material.
Global energy demand PER DAY is 15,000 times bigger than current manufactured battery capacity to store. So mineral demands currently are drop in the bucket, but that demand alone is turning Chinese countryside into mile deep craters resembling orbital bombardment.
Fossil fuels are DENSE. GREEN technology minerals are not dense; they exist as dilute ore. On average about 50-1000 ppm average. For every Ton of mineral/metal, 1000-20,000 tons rock must be dug/broken, chemically extracted and refined. Global mineral demand harvests 500 Billion tons rock, to satiate energy demands in future, mining will have to grow 50 fold for next 5 decades.
More so these green tech minerals do not represent Energy they represent material, and material must be processed. In 2011, A computer required 4,000 Megajoules to manufacture and CPU alone represent 25% that. Obeying Moore’ law increases energy consumption exponentially. The chip shortage during the pandemic/beyond had nothing to do with factories/germs, the energy supply disrupted, high energy chip manufacturing collapsed.