> In the tussle between regulators and companies, companies are disadvantaged.
When society once again properly separates governmental powers, it will restore balance, and then companies will no longer need to fear "regulators."
In the US, businesses are supposed to be regulated by Congress. That way, if Congress does something foolish, we can vote them out.
But in the last 100 years or so, "administrative law"– that is, binding regulations created by the Executive branch– has become a huge part of law-making [1]. Widespread use of Administrative Law allows Congress to wash its hands of any real decision making.
It isn't supposed to be this way, and I think we will find our way out of it.
Your statement that companies are disadvantaged only rings true because Executive-branch regulators are not held to account. Lower-level staff generally do not rotate from administration to administration, and so they make tons of binding rules without oversight. Fortunately, SCOTUS recently overturned some of this [2].
The fundamental problem is that the separation of powers, which is where America's strength comes from, has been upended. Power has been collected, by parties on all sides, within the Executive branch. It's supposed to be, Congress writes law, Judiciary interprets law, and the Executive enforces law. The Administrative State, however, combines all three powers into one under the Executive. It gives itself executive agencies that can bind citizens, and its own courts (ALJs) to determine their fate. See [1] for a comprehensive review.
Confession: I ran that. Sorry, Apple– that was wrong!
If I recall correctly, I'd grab the latest version from a private Hotline site, then re-host it on my public server backed by a cable modem, whose name you got right. I loved Quake too.
I'm not sure that all was healthy at the time, and I like to imagine I'm over such distractions, but here I am..
Ah man, that's amazing. It's insanely cool to hear from you! Thank you for hosting!! It's such a strong memory for me, hopping on Hotline and finding just how much amazing stuff was on there -- your server is one of very very few I remember the name of! I was so excited to try a pre-release version of Mac OS and even moreso a port of Quake for Mac! I had first played the demo/beta while I was taking a course at the local university, but I didn't have any Windows machine at home so it was SO LONG before I could play Quake. I was so thankful to be able to play, even with the brutal low framerate I had to suffer with on my Performa 5260/120. Yeah, I ran a server as well back then, definitely fun times (and great memories around all that), even if it wasn't something I could keep doing forever.
This decision has more to do with the Court owning its own past mistake, where they deferred to executive agencies. But both the judiciary and the legislative enabled the executive to consolidate lawmaking and interpretive power, thus violating the separation (and balance) of powers. Overruling Chevron is a step in the direction of restoring the balance of power. The balance may never be perfect, but at least we can see when we're far off course and make a correction.
They do now. Before Chevron was reversed, the stuff that appeared to be judicial oversight was being done by the agencies themselves, not by the judiciary.
> Chevron was based on the idea that if statutory text is ambiguous the people in charge of implementing said statute were best positioned to figure out what it meant
Wouldn't it be odd if the police also acted as the judge in your criminal trial? That's the point here, to separate lawmaking and interpretive power from the enforcers. Consolidation of power is dangerous because it doesn't work.
> in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act
This ruling made clear that the Chevron doctrine was not in line with the APA,
"Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, as the APA requires."
I think it's more analogous to the overlap between police and prosecutors. Those who are the object of regulatory enforcement can and do bring their objections to courts. Another difference is that agency rulemaking is not made in a vacuum; there's a pretty elaborate rulemaking process which includes (iirc) notices of proposed rulemaking, mandatory public comment periods spanning months, pre-publication of draft rules to allow the possibility of litigation and so on.
> I think it's more analogous to the overlap between police and prosecutors.
Those both fall under the executive branch. Plus, Chevron deference was about the court's actions, not prosecutors'.
> Another difference is that agency rulemaking is not made in a vacuum; there's a pretty elaborate rulemaking process which includes (iirc) notices of proposed rulemaking, mandatory public comment periods spanning months, pre-publication of draft rules to allow the possibility of litigation and so on.
That gives the illusion of a democratic process, but in reality, agency rulemakers are not accountable to the people, whereas Congress is. Keep in mind that the fisheries regulation in question on this case was passed during the Trump administration– so it's not like electing a conservative to head the executive put a stop to excess regulation, which is generally a position that conservatives advocate.
That gives the illusion of a democratic process, but in reality, agency rulemakers are not accountable to the people
I didn't claim it it to be a democratic process, I said it was not an arbitrary or isolated one. The democratic element is in the selection of an executive every 4 years. the rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act won't be formally changed by this, but I suspect it'll be lengthenedand more heavily litigated, resulting in less regulatory clarity and slower enforcement.
> The democratic element is in the selection of an executive every 4 years.
That did nothing to help the fishery in this case. The burdens placed upon them came from a lower level bureaucrat, a decision that likely never crossed Trump's desk. That's just one regulation among thousands per year for which there is no accountability.
It's more clear if you use the word vest and divest rather than delegation. Congress cannot divest its own legislative powers, nor can it vest them in another branch.
Congress cannot divest its legislative power, nor can it vest interpretive power to executive-branch agencies. The judiciary interprets law— not Congress.
There's no issue with Congress interpreting laws here. The executive branch is (was). Which they have to do because how do you enforce a law that you do not have an interpretation of? If Congress disagrees with the judiciary's interpretation they can just pass a law that makes their interpretation the literal law.
I'd argue their success comes from making people think they're in an open discussion forum, or at least know when they're moderated, when in fact users get moderated left and right without their knowledge.
And rather than addressing that problem, with this IPO they've heaped on another one.
Interesting, it has a del.icio.us scraper. I still don't understand why that site disappeared, it was great. By my recollection, Yahoo bought it and killed it.
I wish someone brought back a Delicious clone. I loved its naive Web 2.0 aesthetics.
I think it was a really nice service. Right now all similar ones I know of are unpleasant to use and get in your way.
It was really minimal and useful to find new things. One particular area where link sharing makes a lot of sense, yet existing services are not very nice, is academic papers.
I don’t really remember delicious, but what would the difference be from something like https://pinboard.in/popular/ ? I was under the impression that’s basically a clone. Was it just a different aesthetic?
Pinboard was a clone with a different business model: users actually paid for it.
Fast forward, and delicious died, only to be acquired by — you guessed it — Pinboard [1]. Because Pinboard was actually serving its paying customers, it just kept trucking along.
That's exactly what happened and made me hate Yahoo even more than I already had. The day delicious was shut down for good I lost something that I have never managed to replace. Sad times :(
Tons of mod tools built on top of shadow comment removals: crowd control, comment nuke, disruptive comment collapsing, contributor quality score, subreddit shadow bans via automoderator ...
Check your account here [1], you probably have removed comments you don't know about. Or comment here [2] to see how it works.
When society once again properly separates governmental powers, it will restore balance, and then companies will no longer need to fear "regulators."
In the US, businesses are supposed to be regulated by Congress. That way, if Congress does something foolish, we can vote them out.
But in the last 100 years or so, "administrative law"– that is, binding regulations created by the Executive branch– has become a huge part of law-making [1]. Widespread use of Administrative Law allows Congress to wash its hands of any real decision making.
It isn't supposed to be this way, and I think we will find our way out of it.
Your statement that companies are disadvantaged only rings true because Executive-branch regulators are not held to account. Lower-level staff generally do not rotate from administration to administration, and so they make tons of binding rules without oversight. Fortunately, SCOTUS recently overturned some of this [2].
The fundamental problem is that the separation of powers, which is where America's strength comes from, has been upended. Power has been collected, by parties on all sides, within the Executive branch. It's supposed to be, Congress writes law, Judiciary interprets law, and the Executive enforces law. The Administrative State, however, combines all three powers into one under the Executive. It gives itself executive agencies that can bind citizens, and its own courts (ALJs) to determine their fate. See [1] for a comprehensive review.
[1] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo174366...
[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf