Support NeoGAF

[Abinash117]

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Po...ech-did-not-help-Likud-Post-poll-finds-393124

It could change.

 

[Black Mamba]

The Court was called upon to decide only whether a new interpretation of an agency's regulation, which deviates significantly from an interpretation adopted previously, must comply with the APA's notice-and-comment requirements.

Correction, it was a new interpretation of an interpretive rule that was at issue. Not a legislative rule. This distinction is important. Also, this is what I said in my post!

That is, the nine justices agreed that the lower court's holding should be reversed, but only six justices joined the majority opinion in full. Scalia specifically stated that the Court should not defer to the agency's interpretation of its own regulation, Thomas recognized that so deferring raised important constitutional questions which warranted a new look, and Alito agreed that those two justices at least offered "substantial reasons" to dump some existing doctrine.

I didn't read all their concurrences, but based on the parts you posted it made it seem like they were fine deferring for interpretive rules but went off on a tangent regarding legislative rules, unless something nefarious was going on.

Scalia clearly explains how Chevron, Auer, and the APA are related:

Even the part you post on Scalia here seems to agree with me. His first sentence says: The APA exempts interpretive rules from these requirements.

This means everything he says afterwards is mostly off-topic (granted tangentially related) because the rule in question in this case is interpretive.

Scalia would agree that Chevron does not apply in this case, which involved an agency interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, not an agency interpretation of an ambiguous statute. But his remarks show that he believes both Chevron (for statutes) and Auer (for regulations) are inconsistent with the direction of the APA that the "reviewing court . . . interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action."

Again, not an agency interpretation of an ambiguous regulation, an agency re-interpreting such rule whose interpretation originally did not need notice and comment. This distinction is vital.

Scalia agreed with the ruling and most of the reasoning. he only differed here:

I do not agree, however, with the Court’s portrayal of the result it produces as a vindication of the balance Congress struck when it “weighed the costs and benefits of placing more rigorous . . . restrictions on the issuance of interpretive rules.”

He also seemed to focus on agencies intentionally making ambiguous rules so as to be re-interpreted on the fly. But that wasn't a concern here.

This is all mostly a tangent. He just doesn't want to agree with Sotomayer's explanation in her legislative history part of the Opinion.

It should be noted he also said: As I have described elsewhere, the rule of Chevron, if it did not comport with the APA, at least was in conformity with the long history of judicial review of executive action, where “tatutory ambiguities . . . were left to reasonable resolution by the Executive.”

EDIT:



I'm not so sure that he is right. In fact, I suggest here that the Republicans' letter may have been intended as the first step in building a case to invalidate the agreement in accordance with international law.[/QUOTE]

 

[Metaphoreus]

Correction, it was a new interpretation of an interpretive rule that was at issue. Not a legislative rule. This distinction is important. Also, this is what I said in my post!

...

Again, not an agency interpretation of an ambiguous regulation, an agency re-interpreting such rule whose interpretation originally did not need notice and comment. This distinction is vital.

No, no, no. The "interpretive rule" at issue in Perez was a new interpretation of a legislative rule enacted after notice and comment. The Dept. of Labor had opined in some letters in 1999 and 2001 that mortgage-loan officers do not qualify for the administrative exemption from the overtime pay requirement of the FLSA, based on pre-2004 regulations. Then, in 2004, DOL promulgated some new rules, following the notice-and-comment procedures set forth in the APA. In 2006, DOL issued a new opinion interpreting the 2004 rules and finding that mortgage-loan officers came within the administrative exemption. In 2010, however, DOL issued yet another new opinion, finding the exact opposite. It was that 2010 opinion (not the underlying--and decidedly legislative--rule) that the Mortgage Bankers Association challenged.

Even the part you post on Scalia here seems to agree with me. His first sentence says: The APA exempts interpretive rules from these requirements.

This means everything he says afterwards is mostly off-topic (granted tangentially related) because the rule in question in this case is interpretive.

I agree, but "off-topic" doesn't mean "unimportant." What is "off-topic" in this case might not be "off-topic" in a future case, and the opinions of Scalia and Thomas in this case may be viewed as persuasive authority in that future case.

It should be noted he also said: As I have described elsewhere, the rule of Chevron, if it did not comport with the APA, at least was in conformity with the long history of judicial review of executive action, where “tatutory ambiguities . . . were left to reasonable resolution by the Executive.”

I did note that, but it means less than you seem to think. As I said, Scalia's reading of the APA suggests that Chevron is mistaken, and the only reason he goes with it is because there's some historical basis supporting the practice.

I don't completely understand why we're arguing about what Scalia said, though. It's all pretty straightforward.

 

[Black Mamba]

No, no, no. The "interpretive rule" at issue in Perez was a new interpretation of a legislative rule enacted after notice and comment. The Dept. of Labor had opined in some letters in 1999 and 2001 that mortgage-loan officers do not qualify for the administrative exemption from the overtime pay requirement of the FLSA, based on pre-2004 regulations. Then, in 2004, DOL promulgated some new rules, following the notice-and-comment procedures set forth in the APA. In 2006, DOL issued a new opinion interpreting the 2004 rules and finding that mortgage-loan officers came within the administrative exemption. In 2010, however, DOL issued yet another new opinion, finding the exact opposite. It was that 2010 opinion (not the underlying--and decidedly legislative--rule) that the Mortgage Bankers Association challenged.

The 2004 legislative rule is only different from the pre-2004 rule in that examples of exemptions were given, but still left ambiguous. Even though Notice And Comment were given, the rule wasn't actually changed, though this is neither here nor there.

Regardless, the point is that the 2006 Letter, which is an Interpretive Rule, was not subject to notice and comment and thus the 2010 re-interpretation isn't, either. Of course the agency is interpreting an ambiguous legislative rule, but it did so via an interpretive rule (therefore without the full power of the law) and it's re-interpretation is what is at issue.

I think we're just talking past each other. The agency is altering its interpretive rule (the 2006 rule) without notice and comment.

I agree, but "off-topic" doesn't mean "unimportant." What is "off-topic" in this case might not be "off-topic" in a future case, and the opinions of Scalia and Thomas in this case may be viewed as persuasive authority in that future case.

Sure, it's useful in that sense. Just pointing out Scalia didn't truly disagree in any part of the ruling, just doing his usual "but I want to be like a Professor today" schtick.

I did note that, but it means less than you seem to think. As I said, Scalia's reading of the APA suggests that Chevron is mistaken, and the only reason he goes with it is because there's some historical basis supporting the practice.

I don't completely understand why we're arguing about what Scalia said, though. It's all pretty straightforward.

I agree and he probably would get rid of Chevron. Though, I think he would still allow deference in certain ambiguous areas.

 

[ivysaur12]

Siddhartha Mitter is posting op-eds that Tom Cotton wrote for the Harvard Crimson:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1997/9/19/socratic-drinking-pbwbe-often-forget-that/

To Harvard students, such measures may seem extreme and unjustified. While binge drinking is certainly alive and thriving here, personal responsibility and intelligence are also. Most Harvard students do not need such laws to moderate their behavior. They can moderate it themselves. Unfortunately for them, one can only legislate to generalities, not particularities, and the generality of kids in society do not have the mental faculties of Harvard students.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm just going to chime in on this weekend's big news.

I thought the Open Letter by the GOP Senate was one of the most deplorable things I've seen in my lifetime from a group that large in Congress.

No, it's not treason and no it's not illegal. But it was disgusting.

I never thought we'd ever see a letter like that where a party basically tells a nation it's negotiation with our President is fruitless. I mean...the gall.

This was not a power grab by the Congress. This was an attempt to make a mockery of our President.

These same exact assholes that insulted Obama for not marching in France (oh and who in Leadership showed up to Selma???), same assholes who invited a foreign leader to speak behind the back of the Administration, are the same exact assholes that tried to undermine foreign policy negating all normal forms of decorum between the Legislative and Executive.

It's beyond politics or policy, it's just fucking pettiness. There is no excuse for what they did. They have no shame. These assholes would put our national security at risk if it would undermine our President.

Each and every one of them should be forced to eat a bag of dicks. Not any old dicks, either, but old, cheesy, wrinkly dicks. Riddled with Herpes and open sores.

Fuck them. That is all.

/end rant.

 

[Jooney]

^ hey man, Kevin McCarthy was at Selma!

 

[Crisco]

lol so Iran's foreign minister basically responded with a "fuck you"?

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8180933/zarif-cotton-letter

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

I wonder what the Newsday cover from the same day was? "Patriots?"

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Wow! I've always wanted a watch like Dick Tracy.

Spoiler

j/k

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

This was not a power grab by the Congress. This was an attempt to make a mockery of our President.

I am more cynical than that. Yes, it was intended to insult the President. It was also intended to plant some seeds that the Congress can exert more influence, that the Presidency has less power. These guys know that 2016 is looking grim for the GOP and they are testing the borders of what they can pull without the Presidency.

I expect more power struggles/breaches like this in the coming year and a half.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Siddhartha Mitter is posting op-eds that Tom Cotton wrote for the Harvard Crimson:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1997/9/19/socratic-drinking-pbwbe-often-forget-that/

Unfortunately for them, one can only legislate to generalities, not particularities, and the generality of kids in society do not have the mental faculties of Harvard students.

Screw off douche

 

[Aaron Strife]

Walker's approval ratings in WI are 43-52 following right-to-work law

I want more maps where Hillary loses Wisconsin and Pennsylvania

 

[NeoXChaos]

This should keep Republicans up at night.

 

[BertramCooper]

I'm glad that there does appear to be a considerable amount of outrage over the Iran letter.

Because there wasn't nearly enough over Bibi's speech.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Walker's approval ratings in WI are 43-52 following right-to-work law

I want more maps where Hillary loses Wisconsin and Pennsylvania

PPP Wisconsin

Clinton 52 Walker 43
Biden 48 Walker 45
Warren 48 Walker 45

 

[Wilsongt]

Republicans are showing even more what idiots they are with that Iran letter. Good thing they aren't going to win in 2016.

 

[Aaron Strife]

PPP Wisconsin

Clinton 52 Walker 43
Biden 48 Walker 45
Warren 48 Walker 45

If Walker is the GOP nominee it would make me wish Biden ran as the Dem nominee because he would probably win. Oh well

 

[Mario]

lol so Iran's foreign minister basically responded with a "fuck you"?

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8180933/zarif-cotton-letter

Good to see the Iranians themselves smack this down.

Has the administration commented on the issue directly? I've been traveling for a day so am not up to speed. Would like to see the new Give No Fucks Obama speak to it himself.

 

[ivysaur12]

PPP Wisconsin

Clinton 52 Walker 43
Biden 48 Walker 45
Warren 48 Walker 45

It's too early none of this matters.

 

[thezerofire]

Good to see the Iranians themselves smack this down.

Has the administration commented on the issue directly? I've been traveling for a day so am not up to speed. Would like to see the new Give No Fucks Obama speak to it himself.

Both Obama and Biden have made statements, I don't have them on hand however

 

[NYCmetsfan]

"Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton " - the media

 

[Aaron Strife]

It's too early none of this matters.

Nothing really matters anyone can see

I hope they have Feingold trouncing the hell out of Johnson, only election I've been actually bitter about since Bush 04

 

[PhoenixDark]

How many poorly delivered attempts at self depreciating humor will Clinton utter today? Haven't seen the presser but expect some calculated shit.

She needs a primary challenger.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Am I living in crazy land or did ABC just break away from programming to show this Clinton thing. You'd think something important actually happened.

 

[CrazyDude]

Is the email thing hurting Clinton in any way? It seems like the media is making this into a bigger deal than it is.

 

[DarkFlow]

Is the email thing hurting Clinton in any way? It seems like the media is making this into a bigger deal than it is.

I forgot it was a thing till I saw this presser.

 

[Aaron Strife]

How many poorly delivered attempts at self depreciating humor will Clinton utter today? Haven't seen the presser but expect some calculated shit.

She needs a primary challenger.

"I couldn't make my emails public because I said some nasty things to John Kerry when he beat my Flappy Bird record"

 

[NeoXChaos]

This email story is ridiculous & boring.

 

[DarkFlow]

This guy sounds like he posts on GAF. "The rules were perfectly clear..."

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Is the email thing hurting Clinton in any way? It seems like the media is making this into a bigger deal than it is.

Their reactions on twitter are completely out of sync with the public besides partisians and people who want to take down Clinton.

She's releasing the emails. The public isn't going to care.

Its a way for them to play victim which is what they love to do. See their reaction to the risen trial and ap story. The public doesn't care.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sounds like Hillary bombed according to twitter.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sounds like Hillary bombed according to twitter.

Lol I couldn't disagree more. This is just going to be a right wing conspiracy machine.

The public isn't going to care except people that were never gonna vote for her.

Remember when a black candidate for president went to a church where the preacher said "god damn America"? America couldn't elect him...

 

[SenorArdilla]

I didn't catch it. How well did Hilary respond?

 

[Owzers]

This email story is ridiculous & boring.

Yep, republicans want to see Hillary's private emails, and it doesn't seem like the regulations were meant to catch all nefarious activity like the media is pretending.

 

[ivysaur12]

Only 608 days until the election.

 

[Cloudy]

Sounds like Hillary bombed according to twitter.

She was fine and is taking the correct route by not releasing personal emails and drawing this thing out even longer. If you support her, you will accept the explanation and vice versa if you don't. I was personally surprised to learn that government cellphones don't have the capability for multiple email addresses yet.

This is a story for the right-wing fever swamps and the mainstream media will play along till something new and shiny comes along

 

[Wilsongt]

Sounds like Hillary bombed according to twitter.

Nottothisoshitoagain.jpg

 

[HylianTom]

Pretty dull, I'd say. She could borrow Doc Brown's Delorean and retrieve the server from 2013 and bring it back, and they'd still say it wasn't good enough.

Not even a blip on my Twitter feed. Everyone's going nuts over losing Jimmy Graham..

 

[Teggy]

From coverage it appears she said no chance are you getting my personal emails (which she has every right to say) and otherwise will be handing over all work related emails. This will of course just make republicans foam at the mouth.

 

[WayneMorse]

Who gives a shit? No one is going to care about the emails when Hillary announces her campaign.

 

[Abinash117]

Seems more people care about #47traitors than the email.

 

[B-Dubs]

Seems more people care about #47traitors than the email.

Probably because a bunch of people do what Hilary did, none of them would ever considering doing what those senators did.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Pretty dull, I'd say. She could borrow Doc Brown's Delorean and retrieve the server from 2013 and bring it back, and they'd still say it wasn't good enough.

Not even a blip on my Twitter feed. Everyone's going nuts over losing Jimmy Graham..

They have a first round pick though.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Seems more people care about #47traitors than the email.

Yeah. They kind of stepped on their own news cycle a bit, and it looks to be backfiring quite nicely.

 

[ivysaur12]

Alan Abramowitz ‏@AlanIAbramowitz
Prediction: Reactions to Clinton presser will break almost perfectly along party lines.

Pretty much.

 

[Plinko]

This should keep Republicans up at night.

Good luck with Iowa and getting Wisconsin.

 

[ivysaur12]

Good luck with Iowa and getting Wisconsin.

Yeah, I mean, that's not going to happen. Walker has a 9 point deficit to HillDawg right now. That'll tighten, but good lord that's a hurdle to overcome. And HillDawg is up over Jeb 49-39! Again, it'll tighten, but I don't see any Republican winning it this cycle.

 

[Coriolanus]

Probably because a bunch of people do what Hilary did, none of them would ever considering doing what those senators did.

And that's precisely why the nazis got into power.

 

[Poodlestrike]

And that's precisely why the nazis got into power.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh