Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

can you provide a correct interpretation of the ruling?


Not parent, but Chevron was about deference to agencies, not about whether courts should adhere to legislative intent. The original Chevron ruling was written by a well-known originalist, who usually didn't abide by legislative intent.


i.o.w. it was about whether Congress just has to write the intent, or whether it has to write the full implementation too.


No. Why would you say something that you know is obviously false?

Everyone knows the New Deal administrative state existed. I'd really appreciate it if leftist extremists would stop trying to convince us it didn't.


sure, but agency interpretation is only possible within the vagaries of the legislation. that's 100% synonymous with intention/implementation.


Here you go: https://www.justice.gov/d9/osg/briefs/1983/01/01/sg830081.tx...

You can read all 7,000 words, then you will better understand the "correct interpretation".


[flagged]


i've skimmed it, that's what i got out of it, but i'm no lawyer. if you aren't going to clearly express your intent here i must continue to rely on my interpretation


HN is for intellectual curiosity, and not for ideological battle.

If you are going to insist on spewing political talking points instead of reading the opinion, all while refusing to take into account an expert in the field—an attorney for a federal agency—telling you that you're wrong, then you should reconsider whether you belong here.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: