[cdestroyer]

I consider myself able to read and understand most technical jargon but this one has me stumped. can someone please decode and interpret in plains english what the heck this means? Chevron deference Primary tabs One of the most important principles in administrative law, the “Chevron deference” was coined after a landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984). The Chevron deference is referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions. In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question. The scope of the Chevron deference doctrine is that when a legislative delegation to an administrative agency on a particular issue or question is not explicit but rather implicit, a court may not substitute its own interpretation of the statute for a reasonable interpretation made by the administrative agency. Rather, as Justice Stevens wrote in Chevron, when the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s action was based on a permissible construction of the statute. First, the Chevron deference requires that the administrative interpretation in question was issued by the agency charged with administering that statute. Accordingly, interpretations by agencies not in charge of the statute in question are not owed any judicial deference. Also, the implicit delegation of authority to an administrative agency to interpret a statute does not extend to the agency’s interpretation of its own jurisdiction under that statute.

[Malachai Constant]

Unfortunately the present SCOTUS is not guided by precedent or existing legal principles such as administrative defferance. It is rather invoking a nebulous concept that believes that anything not specifically called out in the Constitution is up for grabs. Many comentaters call this outcome determined ie they figure how the case should come out and have a clerk come up with the rationale. I will not go further as it veres into political comment.

[Cyclopath]

Supreme Court is not bound by laws. There's a guy actively taking bribes and we can't do anything about it because he's appointed for life.

[cdestroyer]

not trying to get into political here but it has been my understanding that the supreme court is ruled or controlled by congress,, am I wrong?. and how is it even a federal judge is above the law?

[Malachai Constant]

Only control is impeachment by house and trial by Senate 2/3 vote to convict. Not likely with 50-50 senate.

[cdestroyer]

okay good enough thanks