[HN Gopher] When a statute is ambiguous the tie should go to the...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       When a statute is ambiguous the tie should go to the citizen not
       the government
        
       Author : delichon
       Score  : 6 points
       Date   : 2024-03-07 20:24 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (reason.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (reason.com)
        
       | bell-cot wrote:
       | > In practice, the Chevron deference undermined the Court's
       | independence, since it forced courts to just accept executive
       | branch interpretations in many tough cases.
       | 
       | > The doctrine also creates perverse incentives for the other two
       | branches. For example, by giving deference to agencies in
       | ambiguous cases, it gave executive branch regulators incentive to
       | hunt for ambiguities in order to expand their own power. This led
       | to decades of executive overreach, as administrations used
       | convoluted readings of statutes to pursue agendas Congress never
       | imagined.
       | 
       | Reaction I: Does _Reason_ magazine consider a corporation to be a
       | citizen?
       | 
       | Reaction II: Do they envision Congress feeling any inclination to
       | write less-ambiguous laws, to preserve their own power?*
       | 
       | Reaction III: With the size of the Federal law (https://en.wikipe
       | dia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_...), and the massive
       | overhead of deciding even trivial matters via the Federal Courts
       | - just how many hundred hours per week is _Reason_ thinking that
       | the average Federal Judge should be working, to keep up?
       | 
       | *Yes, part of me says "The only power that Congress cares about
       | is their ability to extract political donations. And so long as
       | the last donation check has clear the bank before the first legal
       | challenge to the Incomprehensible Blather Act of 2024 is heard by
       | a judge..."
        
       | serevi wrote:
       | Opinion devoid of evidence.
        
         | klyrs wrote:
         | Standard fare for reason.com
        
       | wmf wrote:
       | Isn't there precedent in common law that ambiguity in contracts
       | should be interpreted in favor of the party that didn't write the
       | contract? Reason is making essentially the same argument here but
       | for laws.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-07 23:02 UTC)