Law US Supreme Court to decide on the Unelected Power of Federal Alphabet Agencies

[CantCucktheTuck]

But now you've taken one hypothetical example of a thing you don't like and turned it into a massive, sweeping deregulatory power grab across our governing branches. The SC isn't ruling piece meal with this; they are poised to completely eliminate qualifying regulatory standards at the expert level. They _want_ businesses to sue and they _want_ lower courts to be able to eliminate regulations almost like a line item veto. They don't want Congress to have this power anymore.

congress has, through inaction, already seeded its power to the bureaucracy. This would be the court saying just because congress has failed to address a specific issue, the federal agencies don’t get to twist existing laws to their new goals.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I'm not getting that from this . . . it might be part of it, but I'm seeing it more of how an existing standard is going to potentially get changed due to some new interpretation. Not that the existing regulation is going to get done away with or that a brand new regulation will have more hoops to jump through than in the past.

Because Chevron is what cements the ability for Congress to delegate any of it's qualifying regulatory authority to the Federal agencies it oversees

 

[spamking]

Because Chevron is what cements the ability for Congress to delegate any of it's qualifying regulatory authority to the Federal agencies it oversees

Right, but in explicit situations it's business as usual.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Right, but in explicit situations it's business as usual.

But it's not, because we have thousands and thousands of laws, and the regulatory qualifications of any given agency aren't going to line up with the top level of statute unless it is _extremely_ explicit with absolutely no other language of any kind in addition. And even THEN, if the court rules as broadly as is expected, then virtually the entire full body of agency regulation could be swatted away. We have already seen one of the facets in which this has played out, and we've seen it very recently. This isn't something poised to effect a small number or onerous overreaches, it changes the entire way that specifics of regulations are drawn up. The whole reason why we needed Chevron in the first place was to clarify this because it will always need to happen. Again, Rep. Old Man from Kentucky doesn't know anything about permafrost, or the chemical composition of the atmosphere, or a million other things. And he doesn't need to. Congress setting a regulatory mandate and then allowing experts to address it is how the process needs to work. But big business lobbyists don't want the EPA deciding the definition of "Clean Air". They want that determined by a judge with zero expertise.

 

[spamking]

But it's not, because we have thousands and thousands of laws, and the regulatory qualifications of any given agency aren't going to line up with the top level of statute unless it is _extremely_ explicit with absolutely no other language of any kind in addition. And even THEN, if the court rules as broadly as is expected, then virtually the entire full body of agency regulation could be swatted away. We have already seen one of the facets in which this has played out, and we've seen it very recently. This isn't something poised to effect a small number or onerous overreaches, it changes the entire way that specifics of regulations are drawn up. The whole reason why we needed Chevron in the first place was to clarify this because it will always need to happen. Again, Rep. Old Man from Kentucky doesn't know anything about permafrost, or the chemical composition of the atmosphere, or a million other things. And he doesn't need to. Congress setting a regulatory mandate and then allowing experts to address it is how the process needs to work. But big business lobbyists don't want the EPA deciding the definition of "Clean Air". They want that determined by a judge with zero expertise.

Federal agencies should only be enforcing EXPLICIT regulations codified in law. The FDA isn't going to ask Congress about enforcing routine, explicit items in their Food Code. Just as they shouldn't be changing the interpretation of the regs that guide food safety without explicit scientific information that is used to publish an addendum to the Food Code. They're not going to ask Congress for input on regulating medical devices, and shouldn't be doing a 180 from historical enforcement in a manner completely void of any scientific backing. (This would apply to other agencies as well).

Implicit regulations shouldn't exist and shouldn't be enforced . . . Rep. Old Man from Kentucky wouldn't need to know about permafrost or the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Rep. Old Man needs the Agency to submit any changes on either that they want to begin using for NEW regulations that will impact everyone involved. There's allowing experts to address it and then there's not allowing brand new "experts" to come in under a new administration and completely change how it was previously addressed. Let's not pretend that many Department Secretaries who are pushing for these changed interpretations of implicit regs have a significant amount more experience than some judges.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Federal agencies should only be enforcing EXPLICIT regulations codified in law. The FDA isn't going to ask Congress about enforcing routine, explicit items in their Food Code. Just as they shouldn't be changing the interpretation of the regs that guide food safety without explicit scientific information that is used to publish an addendum to the Food Code. They're not going to ask Congress for input on regulating medical devices, and shouldn't be doing a 180 from historical enforcement in a manner completely void of any scientific backing. (This would apply to other agencies as well).

Implicit regulations shouldn't exist and shouldn't be enforced . . . Rep. Old Man from Kentucky wouldn't need to know about permafrost or the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Rep. Old Man needs the Agency to submit any changes on either that they want to begin using for NEW regulations that will impact everyone involved. There's allowing experts to address it and then there's not allowing brand new "experts" to come in under a new administration and completely change how it was previously addressed. Let's not pretend that many Department Secretaries who are pushing for these changed interpretations of implicit regs have a significant amount more experience than some judges.

But your view on this is totally myopic. We have numerous Federal agencies with thousands upon thousands of laws, and they do enforce what is specifically spelled out for them to do. But there literally -literally- isn't any way to remove ambiguity from the regulatory process at the policy level. It cannot be done. And Congress recognizes this, and allows for agencies -which remain under their jurisdiction- to operate within that leeway due to them having the expertise needed for qualifying adjustments and determinations. Nobody isn't saying that can't be improved with better active oversight, or that Congress shouldn't take a more active role in some of these processes just in general. That isn't what the SC is trying to do with this case, and it isn't what industry lobbyists want from it.

 

[spamking]

But your view on this is totally myopic. We have numerous Federal agencies with thousands upon thousands of laws, and they do enforce what is specifically spelled out for them to do. But there literally -literally- isn't any way to remove ambiguity from the regulatory process at the policy level. It cannot be done. And Congress recognizes this, and allows for agencies -which remain under their jurisdiction- to operate within that leeway due to them having the expertise needed for qualifying adjustments and determinations. Nobody isn't saying that can't be improved with better active oversight, or that Congress shouldn't take a more active role in some of these processes just in general. That isn't what the SC is trying to do with this case, and it isn't what industry lobbyists want from it.

How am I short-sighted? Agencies have taken advantage of Chevron and it's finally getting them in "trouble".

Look, I know this would impact some agencies different than another. But please stop acting like you don't understand what I've been saying. You agree that agencies have no problem enforcing what is specifically spelled out for them to do. That's fine. It's not something that will be impacted. The ambiguity you mentioned is EXACTLY what should be obliterated. At all levels. Everyone should want it addressed. If Agencies are properly regulating based on their clear directives then "we" shouldn't have to deal with multiple different interpretations of some regulations where the Agencies try and apply them to a specific situation or to try and establish some new issue that the agency needs to address.

Why should we continue allow an agency to blur the line between what they can legally regulate and what they perceive as a problem today that was completely ignored last week? If they find new evidence that something needs to be legally regulated that currently isn't they need to go through the proper channels to get it legally added to their directive.

And with that . . .

 

[jefferz]

But it's not, because we have thousands and thousands of laws, and the regulatory qualifications of any given agency aren't going to line up with the top level of statute unless it is _extremely_ explicit with absolutely no other language of any kind in addition. And even THEN, if the court rules as broadly as is expected, then virtually the entire full body of agency regulation could be swatted away. We have already seen one of the facets in which this has played out, and we've seen it very recently. This isn't something poised to effect a small number or onerous overreaches, it changes the entire way that specifics of regulations are drawn up. The whole reason why we needed Chevron in the first place was to clarify this because it will always need to happen. Again, Rep. Old Man from Kentucky doesn't know anything about permafrost, or the chemical composition of the atmosphere, or a million other things. And he doesn't need to. Congress setting a regulatory mandate and then allowing experts to address it is how the process needs to work. But big business lobbyists don't want the EPA deciding the definition of "Clean Air". They want that determined by a judge with zero expertise.

They don’t want a judge with zero experience, they want a judge they can appoint.

 

[panamaican]

But it's not, because we have thousands and thousands of laws, and the regulatory qualifications of any given agency aren't going to line up with the top level of statute unless it is _extremely_ explicit with absolutely no other language of any kind in addition. And even THEN, if the court rules as broadly as is expected, then virtually the entire full body of agency regulation could be swatted away. We have already seen one of the facets in which this has played out, and we've seen it very recently. This isn't something poised to effect a small number or onerous overreaches, it changes the entire way that specifics of regulations are drawn up. The whole reason why we needed Chevron in the first place was to clarify this because it will always need to happen. Again, Rep. Old Man from Kentucky doesn't know anything about permafrost, or the chemical composition of the atmosphere, or a million other things. And he doesn't need to. Congress setting a regulatory mandate and then allowing experts to address it is how the process needs to work. But big business lobbyists don't want the EPA deciding the definition of "Clean Air". They want that determined by a judge with zero expertise.

More than that, they want to substitute the EPA's definition with the corporate definition.

Because corporations are the groups who will be bringing these suits, not Joe Average. And corporations want the judge to say "Since the term is not explicitly defined, we'll defer to the litigant, not the regulatory authority, and the litigant in this multimillion dollar lawsuit just happens to be a mega corporation who will make mega-multimillions by changing the definition..."

 

[panamaican]

How am I short-sighted? Agencies have taken advantage of Chevron and it's finally getting them in "trouble".

Look, I know this would impact some agencies different than another. But please stop acting like you don't understand what I've been saying. You agree that agencies have no problem enforcing what is specifically spelled out for them to do. That's fine. It's not something that will be impacted. The ambiguity you mentioned is EXACTLY what should be obliterated. At all levels. Everyone should want it addressed. If Agencies are properly regulating based on their clear directives then "we" shouldn't have to deal with multiple different interpretations of some regulations where the Agencies try and apply them to a specific situation or to try and establish some new issue that the agency needs to address.

Why should we continue allow an agency to blur the line between what they can legally regulate and what they perceive as a problem today that was completely ignored last week? If they find new evidence that something needs to be legally regulated that currently isn't they need to go through the proper channels to get it legally added to their directive.

And with that . . .

No, that's not how it works. What the lawsuit is asking is that the courts defer to the litigant's definition whenever a term or application is vague. Right now, the courts defer to the federal agency's definition.

Agencies aren't blurring the line, they're doing the job they're supposed to do.

Right now, imagine that Congress says "Meat can't have pesticides or anything that harms children." Okay, meat is a vague term. You might not think so but what if a corporation comes up with some kind of meat like product that it doesn't want regulated? Who decides if the product gets regulated?

Currently, the FDA does. They can say "meat" should be interpreted to include that product...a product that didn't exist when the law was written. What corporations want is for the courts to say "Well, meat is too vague for this product so we should defer to the manufacturer about if it meets the definition."

"Anything that harms children." Also vague. Right now, the FDA or some other agency would determine via tests if the product's impact is harmful to children. The corporations would argue that the term is vague and so they should be allowed to determine what "harms children".

So, what now? You wait for Congress to redefine "meat" to include this specific product or to redefine "harms children" to include the specific harm the product creates? Meanwhile years of harm goes unabated and, as importantly, people affected by it won't have the capacity to set redress in court.

You can see the problem here when corporate and other interested parties get deference on how they interpret the regulations that Congress passed to oversee them? And I hope you can the snail's pace at which sending every term back to Congress because innovation has rendered a term too vague for modern use. Or that Congress cannot be expected to list every potential variation on a theme to explicitly state in a law.

Frankly, if we applied this to the Constitution, it would be unenforceable. The Constitution is full of vague terms...intentionally.

 

[spamking]

No, that's not how it works. What the lawsuit is asking is that the courts defer to the litigant's definition whenever a term or application is vague. Right now, the courts defer to the federal agency's definition.

Agencies aren't blurring the line, they're doing the job they're supposed to do.

Right now, imagine that Congress says "Meat can't have pesticides or anything that harms children." Okay, meat is a vague term. You might not think so but what if a corporation comes up with some kind of meat like product that it doesn't want regulated? Who decides if the product gets regulated?

Currently, the FDA does. They can say "meat" should be interpreted to include that product...a product that didn't exist when the law was written. What corporations want is for the courts to say "Well, meat is too vague for this product so we should defer to the manufacturer about if it meets the definition."

"Anything that harms children." Also vague. Right now, the FDA or some other agency would determine via tests if the product's impact is harmful to children. The corporations would argue that the term is vague and so they should be allowed to determine what "harms children".

So, what now? You wait for Congress to redefine "meat" to include this specific product or to redefine "harms children" to include the specific harm the product creates? Meanwhile years of harm goes unabated and, as importantly, people affected by it won't have the capacity to set redress in court.

You can see the problem here when corporate and other interested parties get deference on how they interpret the regulations that Congress passed to oversee them? And I hope you can the snail's pace at which sending every term back to Congress because innovation has rendered a term too vague for modern use. Or that Congress cannot be expected to list every potential variation on a theme to explicitly state in a law.

Frankly, if we applied this to the Constitution, it would be unenforceable. The Constitution is full of vague terms...intentionally.

So remove the option for anything to be regulated vaguely. The FDA has a very clear process on how to bring a new product on to the market. Meat would mean as defined by the current edition of the FDA Food Code. All vendors, manufacturers, etc. know this . . .

Agencies blur the lines quite often. Otherwise these issues would need to rely on Chevron. Explicit direction is fairly easy to work with. Implicit not so much in most cases.

Your examples are the very extreme of what might happen and something that would already be explained in a very clearly written regulation. It seems very clear that agencies shouldn't offer an off-the-wall interpretation that only adds to the confusion of a specific regulation. An example of this is the ATF's frame and receiver rule.

If the entire point of a regulation/guideline is to protect "meat", "children" or the general public, why in the world should any part of it be left open to interpretation?

 

[panamaican]

So remove the option for anything to be regulated vaguely. The FDA has a very clear process on how to bring a new product on to the market. Meat would mean as defined by the current edition of the FDA Food Code. All vendors, manufacturers, etc. know this . . .

Agencies blur the lines quite often. Otherwise these issues would need to rely on Chevron. Explicit direction is fairly easy to work with. Implicit not so much in most cases.

Your examples are the very extreme of what might happen and something that would already be explained in a very clearly written regulation. It seems very clear that agencies shouldn't offer an off-the-wall interpretation that only adds to the confusion of a specific regulation. An example of this is the ATF's frame and receiver rule.

If the entire point of a regulation/guideline is to protect "meat", "children" or the general public, why in the world should any part of it be left open to interpretation?

My example is at the extreme because that's where the litigation around the vagueness of terms occurs. No one litigates the vagueness of a term like meat when discussing hamburger or chicken breasts. It's precisely at the extremes that regulatory agencies are making the on the ground determinations that Congress has asked of them.

And agencies don't offer off the wall interpretations. If an agency does so, the courts can and do step in. The Chevron doctrine doesn't protect inane interpretations.

It manages the distinction between two equally plausible applications of a term by granting greater lenience to the agency's interpretation. Maybe people don't actually know what the doctrine is and their first encounter with it is this litigation:

the idea that judges should defer to agency interpretations of the gaps and ambiguities in the laws they implement, so long as those interpretations are reasonable.

"So long as those interpretations are reasonable." Anyone who thinks that agencies are making up extreme applications for their benefit doesn't understand that there is already a barrier to that. Agencies don't create the gaps and ambiguities, even Congress doesn't create all of them. The gaps and ambiguities come because it is impossible to write law that covers every possibility, not in the present and definitely not in the future. So, there will always be gaps and ambiguities no matter what Congress does.

The question is "When those gaps and ambiguities arise and the corporation and the agency disagree on the interpretation of the ambiguity, whose opinion should carry more weight?"

If you give greater weight to the agency then you're letting agencies fill in the gaps in ways that fit the agency's goal. If you give greater weight to the corporation then you're letting the corporation fill in the gap.

Let's take something less theoretical. Let's take something like internet corporations who say that they're not governed by certain aspects of laws that cover publishers. That's an ambiguity. Who should carry more weight in clearing up the determination - the corporation that might be governed by the regulation or the agency that would have to enforce the regulation?

IMO, greater weight should go to the agency. Letting the corporation determine how to define an ambiguity is like letting the wolf decide where the chickens sleep.

 

[spamking]

My example is at the extreme because that's where the litigation around the vagueness of terms occurs. No one litigates the vagueness of a term like meat when discussing hamburger or chicken breasts. It's precisely at the extremes that regulatory agencies are making the on the ground determinations that Congress has asked of them.

They don't litigate about a term like meat because it's defined by the FDA Food Safety Code. It was a broad definition that is where issues would come up.

And agencies don't offer off the wall interpretations. If an agency does so, the courts can and do step in. The Chevron doctrine doesn't protect inane interpretations.

They have. Specifically the ATF's proposed frame and receiver rule.

It manages the distinction between two equally plausible applications of a term by granting greater lenience to the agency's interpretation. Maybe people don't actually know what the doctrine is and their first encounter with it is this litigation:

the idea that judges should defer to agency interpretations of the gaps and ambiguities in the laws they implement, so long as those interpretations are reasonable.

"So long as those interpretations are reasonable." Anyone who thinks that agencies are making up extreme applications for their benefit doesn't understand that there is already a barrier to that. Agencies don't create the gaps and ambiguities, even Congress doesn't create all of them. The gaps and ambiguities come because it is impossible to write law that covers every possibility, not in the present and definitely not in the future. So, there will always be gaps and ambiguities no matter what Congress does.

I know that. There are means to address those new found issues. Offering some punitive interpretation of a broad, less specific regulation should be reworked to be very descriptive when it's meant to prevent death or injury.

The question is "When those gaps and ambiguities arise and the corporation and the agency disagree on the interpretation of the ambiguity, whose opinion should carry more weight?"

If you give greater weight to the agency then you're letting agencies fill in the gaps in ways that fit the agency's goal. If you give greater weight to the corporation then you're letting the corporation fill in the gap.

My hot take is that those gaps and ambiguities should very rarely happen. Regulations should be written to address those issues at the very first chance that presents itself. Sticking with the FDA Food Code it's updated every 2-4 years and has addendums in between when needed.

Let's take something less theoretical. Let's take something like internet corporations who say that they're not governed by certain aspects of laws that cover publishers. That's an ambiguity. Who should carry more weight in clearing up the determination - the corporation that might be governed by the regulation or the agency that would have to enforce the agency?

What's an internet corporation? Is that an ISP or some group like Google?

I'm going to copout and say both groups should work together to find a compromise.

 

[panamaican]

They don't litigate about a term like meat because it's defined by the FDA Food Safety Code. It was a broad definition that is where issues would come up.

You misunderstood. The ambiguity isn't in the term "meat". The ambiguity is if the term "meat" applies to the new product introduced by a corporation.

They have. Specifically the ATF's proposed frame and receiver rule.

Disagreeing with something doesn't make it off the wall. We can have completely different opinions on something, that doesn't mean either of our opinions are unreasonable.

I know that. There are means to address those new found issues. Offering some punitive interpretation of a broad, less specific regulation should be reworked to be very descriptive when it's meant to prevent death or injury.

Reworked by who? By what method? Punitive by whose determination.

This seems to go back to the prior statement where disagreement on interpretation leads people to say that an interpretation is unreasonable. All regulation is "punitive".

My hot take is that those gaps and ambiguities should very rarely happen. Regulations should be written to address those issues at the very first chance that presents itself. Sticking with the FDA Food Code it's updated every 2-4 years and has addendums in between when needed.

Your hot take, respectfully, misses reality. Gaps and ambiguities arise faster than people think. It's hubris to believe that we can predict them and resolve them before they cause problems.

For example, let's take AI. It's been on the radar for a while. But who predicted the potential copyright claims that arise from training a large language model on the internet? No one who wrote copyright law saw the potential pitfall of some kid in his bedroom using AI to make Michael Jackson rap a new song in Jay-Z style. Gaps and ambiguities galore than no one could have predicted. And that's a super obvious one. Think about all of the other industries where seemingly nondescript advances walk into areas where the law was not precisely defined. And it's not precisely defined because Congress knows that agencies have to deal with things a lot quicker than Congress can.

What's an internet corporation? Is that an ISP or some group like Google?

I'm going to copout and say both groups should work together to find a compromise.

I was typing fast, I didn't have time to remember the exact term, lol.

You can take the copout but we know they won't. The corporations have every reason to want to deference to not be on the agency's side. 90% of the shit they sell in GNC would love for agency deference to disappear as they trot out whatever their new shit is and want to label it as something more appealing to the public.

 

[Scerpi]

No, that's not how it works. What the lawsuit is asking is that the courts defer to the litigant's definition whenever a term or application is vague. Right now, the courts defer to the federal agency's definition.

Agencies aren't blurring the line, they're doing the job they're supposed to do.

Right now, imagine that Congress says "Meat can't have pesticides or anything that harms children." Okay, meat is a vague term. You might not think so but what if a corporation comes up with some kind of meat like product that it doesn't want regulated? Who decides if the product gets regulated?

Currently, the FDA does. They can say "meat" should be interpreted to include that product...a product that didn't exist when the law was written. What corporations want is for the courts to say "Well, meat is too vague for this product so we should defer to the manufacturer about if it meets the definition."

"Anything that harms children." Also vague. Right now, the FDA or some other agency would determine via tests if the product's impact is harmful to children. The corporations would argue that the term is vague and so they should be allowed to determine what "harms children".

So, what now? You wait for Congress to redefine "meat" to include this specific product or to redefine "harms children" to include the specific harm the product creates? Meanwhile years of harm goes unabated and, as importantly, people affected by it won't have the capacity to set redress in court.

You can see the problem here when corporate and other interested parties get deference on how they interpret the regulations that Congress passed to oversee them? And I hope you can the snail's pace at which sending every term back to Congress because innovation has rendered a term too vague for modern use. Or that Congress cannot be expected to list every potential variation on a theme to explicitly state in a law.

Frankly, if we applied this to the Constitution, it would be unenforceable. The Constitution is full of vague terms...intentionally.

What's your take on Civil Asset Forfeiture. I know it's always been around in history, but seems to have exploded in the US with the War on Drugs in the 80's and the DEA.

Saw an article that it had ballooned to almost $5 Billion per year... with assets being seized from all types of activities, not just the drug industry... and other law enforcement agencies, federal and state.

And it's a fucking nightmare to get it back, even if the suspect is cleared of wrongdoing.

 

[Limbo Pete]

How am I short-sighted? Agencies have taken advantage of Chevron and it's finally getting them in "trouble".

Look, I know this would impact some agencies different than another. But please stop acting like you don't understand what I've been saying. You agree that agencies have no problem enforcing what is specifically spelled out for them to do. That's fine. It's not something that will be impacted. The ambiguity you mentioned is EXACTLY what should be obliterated. At all levels. Everyone should want it addressed. If Agencies are properly regulating based on their clear directives then "we" shouldn't have to deal with multiple different interpretations of some regulations where the Agencies try and apply them to a specific situation or to try and establish some new issue that the agency needs to address.

Why should we continue allow an agency to blur the line between what they can legally regulate and what they perceive as a problem today that was completely ignored last week? If they find new evidence that something needs to be legally regulated that currently isn't they need to go through the proper channels to get it legally added to their directive.

And with that . . .

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, It's that what you're saying doesn't reflect reality. You can't "obliterate ambiguity" lol

 

[Prefect]

They are independent to regulate as they see fit if they're following their directives and not trying to apply a new interpretation to some issue there shouldn't be any problems.

OSHA won't need to ask permission to regulate anything unless they try to color outside the lines.

The court case is basically stripping away power from agencies that are there to serve the public. If an issue comes up, it can be challenged in the courts as it has. This case is about stripping broad powers of autonomy.

 

[spamking]

The court case is basically stripping away power from agencies that are there to serve the public. If an issue comes up, it can be challenged in the courts as it has. This case is about stripping broad powers of autonomy.

@Limbo Pete @panamaican I'll ask you guys this as well . . .

Regardless of what you think of my comments, let's discuss the merits of the case from the fisherman's perspective. How do you see that playing out and do you support the comparison of expecting them to pay for the observer to that of you or I paying for a cop to ride along with us each day on our commute? I get that we already pay for that from taxes, etc.

Should the fishing vessels/companies be expected to cover the bill starting in 2020 rather than the government covering the costs of an inherently government function like was done before?

Do you not see the issue with NMFS/NOAA making this particular change based on Chevron?

Some of you expressed concerns about lobbyists obtaining more control if this was struck down. If you were in the fishing industry would you not expect your lobby to fight against this type of thing and play more of a role in these decisions? I don't know what the comment period was for something like this or how many public comments were received, but we all know that those are rarely considered unless they're made public and come from a group or lobby with some influence.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

I have to admit, I'm shocked that so many liberals support the autocratic authority of the bureaucracy.

 

[Limbo Pete]

@Limbo Pete @panamaican I'll ask you guys this as well . . .

Regardless of what you think of my comments, let's discuss the merits of the case from the fisherman's perspective. How do you see that playing out and do you support the comparison of expecting them to pay for the observer to that of you or I paying for a cop to ride along with us each day on our commute? I get that we already pay for that from taxes, etc.

Should the fishing vessels/companies be expected to cover the bill starting in 2020 rather than the government covering the costs of an inherently government function like was done before?

Do you not see the issue with NMFS/NOAA making this particular change based on Chevron?

Some of you expressed concerns about lobbyists obtaining more control if this was struck down. If you were in the fishing industry would you not expect your lobby to fight against this type of thing and play more of a role in these decisions? I don't know what the comment period was for something like this or how many public comments were received, but we all know that those are rarely considered unless they're made public and come from a group or lobby with some influence.

Well the actual issue has nothing to do with fishing, though. I get that anyone would reasonably be annoyed (to put it mildly) by this, but it's being used as a vessel for big business lobbyists to destroy regulatory authority across the board. So no, at the end of the day, I can sympathize with anyone that's put out by yet another mounting form of tax, but frankly compared to the actual price the rest of us will pay if/when this effort succeeds, I don't particularly give a shit.