Nice! I'm loving it, I think this final paragraph from yesterday's WSJ Editorial Board sums up the massive problems associated with the Chevron Doctrine:
"It's not too much to say Chevron has corrupted all three branches of government. It lets Congress abdicate its duty to write clear laws, the bureaucracy to grab more power, and the courts to abandon their normal method of judicial review. Time for the High Court to restore constitutional equilibrium."
Loved the follow comments from Paul Clement:
"Justice Elena Kagan said it's up to Congress to overturn Chevron. But as fisheries' attorney Paul Clement rightly rejoined: "I'm not sure everybody in Congress wants to overrule Chevron. . . It's really convenient for some members of Congress not to have to tackle the hard questions and to rely on their friends in the executive branch to get them everything they want."
He added that even if Congress were to pass a law overturning Chevron, "the President would veto it." In any event, he said, Chevron wrongly "assumes that ambiguity is always a delegation" to the executive branch. More often, ambiguity is "'I don't have enough votes in Congress to make it clear, so I'm going to leave it ambiguous . . . and then we'll give it to my friends in the agency.'"
By allowing Congress to pass off responsibility to regulators, Chevron has contributed to legislative dysfunction and gridlock. Congress has failed to pass a law regulating crypto-currency after the FTX fiasco, Mr. Clement said, "because there's an agency head out there that thinks that he already has the authority to address this uniquely 21st century problem with a couple of statutes passed in the 1930s."
Perhaps he means Securities and Exchange Chairman Gary Gensler. "And he's going to wave his wand, and he's going to say the words 'investment contract' are ambiguous," Mr. Clement said. Or consider that the Federal Communications Commission has rewritten broadband regulation four times in 14 years."
