SB 20-12: No More Chevron Deference Act

[Pericles]

NO MORE CHEVRON DEFERENCE ACT

SECTION I: NAME
a. This act shall be referred to as the No More Chevron Deference Act

SECTION II: JUDICIAL POWER IN AGENCY ACTIONS
a. In a proceeding brought by or against a regulated party in a federal court of proper jurisdiction, the court shall decide all questions of law, including the interpretation of a Constitutional or statutory provision or a rule adopted by an agency, without deference to any previous determination that may have been made on the question by the agency. Notwithstanding any other law, this act applies in any action for judicial review of an agency action that is authorized by law. 5 U.S.C. § 551 et. seq. shall be amended accordingly.

SECTION III: TIMING
a. This act shall take effect immediately but shall not be retroactive to any cases pending in a federal court.

House of Representatives
Passed in the House of Representatives 3-2-2-2

X YE

Sponsor: Tea Party Hater
Senate Designation: SB 20-12

[Pericles]

This needs a sponsor.

[Coastal Elitist]

I'll sponsor

[Pericles]

24 hours to object to Senator Tea Party Hater sponsoring this bill.

[Pericles]

Senator Tea Party Hater is recognized as the sponsor and has 48 hours to speak on this bill.

[Coastal Elitist]

As Mr. Reactionary said this restores to our judges the power to interpret questions of law. Based off some bungled 80's nonsense, it is suggested that judges must accept a bureaucrats interpretation of a law rather than the judges judgment. That is what judges are for, to interpret law. This repeals Chevron deference in federal courts by clarifying that the courts are in fact, the judicial branch of government.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I motion for a final vote on this one as well.

[Pericles]

There were 2 nay votes in the House so clearly this doesn't have unanimous support-I'd like someone to post a less favorable view of the bill.

Also 24 hors for objections on Yankee's final vote motion.

[Mr. Reactionary]

There were 2 nay votes in the House so clearly this doesn't have unanimous support-I'd like someone to post a less favorable view of the bill.

Also 24 hors for objections on Yankee's final vote motion.

Well one of those no votes was Wulfric who literally said he otherwise supported the bill but for the fact that his in-game character wanted maximum one party power and that his vote would have been yes if Labor did not control the executive branch at the time the bill was being debated.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

There were 2 nay votes in the House so clearly this doesn't have unanimous support-I'd like someone to post a less favorable view of the bill.

Also 24 hors for objections on Yankee's final vote motion.

Well one of those no votes was Wulfric who literally said he otherwise supported the bill but for the fact that his in-game character wanted maximum one party power and that his vote would have been yes if Labor did not control the executive branch at the time the bill was being debated.

No, that was the REINS act, not this one. I continue to abstain on having an opinion on Chevron as I haven't studied it to the point where I fully understand the pros and cons.

[Mr. Reactionary]

There were 2 nay votes in the House so clearly this doesn't have unanimous support-I'd like someone to post a less favorable view of the bill.

Also 24 hors for objections on Yankee's final vote motion.

Well one of those no votes was Wulfric who literally said he otherwise supported the bill but for the fact that his in-game character wanted maximum one party power and that his vote would have been yes if Labor did not control the executive branch at the time the bill was being debated.

I continue to abstain on having an opinion on Chevron as I haven't studied it to the point where I fully understand the pros and cons.

You clearly haven't studied Hurley or Dale to the point where you fully understand why your other bill is blatantly unconstitutional and yet you are ramming through a vote on that...

[Former President tack50]

Doesn't this break stare decisis and what not? (Not like it is an inherently good or bad thing but it would be major)

I am probably missing a lot tbh

[Mr. Reactionary]

Doesn't this break stare decisis and what not? (Not like it is an inherently good or bad thing but it would be major)

I am probably missing a lot tbh

So to answer quickly... the Supreme Court interprets both the Constitution and statutory laws. Its interpretation of the Constitution is final unless there is a Constitutional amendment. Its interpretation of statutes are final ... unless the law in question is amended. The Chevron case explored the text of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which is the federal statute setting all of the rules for delegation of rulemaking powers by federal agencies. In this particular instance, this proposal is amending the text of the APA so that the text now reflects the opposite conclusion from Chevron. Since we are only overturning a statutory decision, it is OK to do so provided congress appropriately passes new statutory language.

Does that make sense? Basically in terms of legal hierarchy Constitution trumps statute. Congress can overturn Supreme court decisions over statutes if they amend the wording via a new statute in the same way that we all can collectively overturn a Supreme court decision over the Constitution if we amend the wording of the Constitution via the amendment process in the Constitution. So its ok to do this and if it fails to pass interpretation defaults back to the Supreme court interpretation.

[Pericles]

A final vote has started on this bill, Senators have 72 hours to vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Coastal Elitist]

Aye

[Devout Centrist]

Nay

[Former President tack50]

Abstain

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Pyro]

Nay

[Pericles]

This vote has tied 2-2-1-1.
Aye; 2 (Tea Party Hater, North Carolina Yankee)
Nay; 2 (Devout Centrist, PyroTheFox)
Abstaining; 1 (tack50)
Not voting; 1 (ON Progressive)

Gosh, I'm casting a lot of tie-breaking votes! I agree with the points made in Senate and House debates against this bill.

Nay

The bill is rejected.