Thank you, Brian, for drawing out the tech implications of the Chevron decision - much appreciated. I wonder what it would mean for us to “get boots on the ground and resist its rise is now”? What would that look like? Perhaps the subject of another piece…
It's not Biden's "performance" that worries... it's how quickly he's dumped... absolutely pathetic. Trump has no such worries.. he can be horrendous... and is...
If I may register a slight disagreement to something contained in what is, as usual, a painfully insightful post:
There is a measure of democratic (or, dare I say, populist) idealism in the Roberts Court's Chevron decision. (And with many other decisions.) If you read the decision, the majority is effectively saying: it's up to the legislative branch, not the judicial or executive branches, to determine whether agencies should have interpretive prerogative. Let those who wish to govern themselves make the relevant laws.
Didn't the Luddites rise up because decisions threatening their form of life were made by entities whose exercise of power was insulated from democratic contestation?
To be sure, Congress is, as of now, a shitshow. (Arguably, it has become such partly because the people have learned to rely heavily on the judicial and executive branches.) So the relevant lawmaking will be deferred — 'til who knows when. But it seems to me there is something — no matter how small or unrealistic — that is deeply democratic in the decision.
Thank you, Brian, for drawing out the tech implications of the Chevron decision - much appreciated. I wonder what it would mean for us to “get boots on the ground and resist its rise is now”? What would that look like? Perhaps the subject of another piece…
It's not Biden's "performance" that worries... it's how quickly he's dumped... absolutely pathetic. Trump has no such worries.. he can be horrendous... and is...
If I may register a slight disagreement to something contained in what is, as usual, a painfully insightful post:
There is a measure of democratic (or, dare I say, populist) idealism in the Roberts Court's Chevron decision. (And with many other decisions.) If you read the decision, the majority is effectively saying: it's up to the legislative branch, not the judicial or executive branches, to determine whether agencies should have interpretive prerogative. Let those who wish to govern themselves make the relevant laws.
Didn't the Luddites rise up because decisions threatening their form of life were made by entities whose exercise of power was insulated from democratic contestation?
To be sure, Congress is, as of now, a shitshow. (Arguably, it has become such partly because the people have learned to rely heavily on the judicial and executive branches.) So the relevant lawmaking will be deferred — 'til who knows when. But it seems to me there is something — no matter how small or unrealistic — that is deeply democratic in the decision.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/07/antidemocratic-uprising-against-joe-biden/678865/?gift=TA4ke4kNR6_YPFPZM_-PQXYywcy0y743mJq7B9S_-vU&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Trump wants Biden gone... so does Biden have our back... er...
https://open.substack.com/pub/sethabramson/p/the-extremely-simple-reason-maga?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=375jvh