Chevron? Or Auer?
-
-
-
So
@RichardAEpstein started discussing Chevron but then drew in Auer as well (which he said Scalia came to question).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I would love for these kinds of statements to be backed by evidence from actual agency regulation writers.
-
My experience is limited, but I've not seen any intent to draft vaguely. I certainly don't when I write regs.
-
"Vaguely" is prob the wrong word, more accurate = leaving room for regulatory flexibility.
-
That's fair; the sense I had, though, is that
@RichardAEpstein isn't a fan of such flexibility. -
I dislike it on principle, but OK pragmatically. Prefer flexibility to a bad reg, even w/ +risk.
-
But I also think that aspirational law is underappreciated in the US legal system.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Easily resolved by Congress making things less vague, right?
-
Ah, but that would require Congress to be responsible for what they write & make decisions
-
Right, you can't punt and then complain later. Yup.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But again, Congress can fix that, right? Of course they can. http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2016/11/a-congressional-punt-on-chevron-deference.html …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yep, it's all about the subregulatory guidance these days - desk drawer law.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@FedSoc This is why Scalia said agency should get no deference interp regulations. Sep of powers problem.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.