Supreme Court overturns Chevron doctrine; judicial branch can now overrule corrupt FDA, CDC, EPA, ATF and other rogue agencies
By ethanh // 2024-07-02
Copy
 
No longer will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) be allowed to overrule the courts on matters relating to food, dietary supplements, pharmaceuticals and vaccines now that the Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron doctrine. For the past 40 years, the Chevron doctrine has allowed Washington to rule with an iron fist on "expert" matters related to science and medicine. The past four decades have seen regulatory agencies trample over the courts by claiming they have "expert" knowledge about various matters. In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts explained why he believes the Chevron doctrine is inherently flawed. The Supreme Court of the past "gravely erred" in issuing it, Roberts wrote, adding that the legal theory is "misguided" and "unworkable" in a practical sense. "The Constitution assigns to the federal judiciary the responsibility and power to adjudicate cases and controversies," Roberts added. "Agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do." (Related: Conservatives are really excited about the overturning of the Chevron doctrine because it will mean a much smaller federal government.)

From activist regulators to activist judges

The right wing of American politics has been after the Chevron doctrine for years. They want federal agencies to show deference to the courts, which is what overturning the Chevron doctrine will do, and not the other way around as has been the case for the past four decades. Unelected bureaucrats within agencies like the FDA and the CDC are notorious for overruling the courts on matters relating to vaccine injury, for instance, or food safety. Legal cases involving such matters probably would have gone a whole lot differently had the Chevron doctrine not allowed the "deep state" to rule from within the federal regulatory apparatus. For years now, conservatives have focused their attention on putting an end to regulations in general, this being one of the campaign platforms of Donald Trump. But some regulations are onerous and unnecessary while others are important, and overturning the Chevron doctrine could put important regulations at risk of getting struck by activist judges, who are no better than the activist regulators who abused their authority while the Chevron doctrine was intact. It is also worth noting that billionaire Charles Koch helped found the New Civil Liberties Alliance, the group behind the push to overturn the Chevron doctrine. This suggests the oil industry is one of the groups that wants less regulation at the federal level. A number of scientists, environmentalists and labor activists are warning that the Chevron doctrine's undoing will negatively impact the health, welfare and safety of Americans, whom they claim benefitted from the Chevron doctrine. In their dissent, the three liberal Supreme Court justices accused their right-wing peers on the bench of removing this "cornerstone of administrative law." Justice Elena Kagan further called the Chevron doctrine "part of the warp and woof of modern government." "The majority disdains restraint and grasps for power," Kagan wrote in a scathing rebuke of the decision. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also chimed in on the overturning, calling it a "power grab by the far-right to benefit the wealthy and well-connected." "The administrative state just died," lamented Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. "The imperial judiciary relegated Congress to a secondary role." One of our readers added to the conversation that no matter how the matter is sliced, one branch of the government will never stop another branch of the government "from committing crimes against the people it claims give it the authority to commit the crimes." "Why not bring a copy of your state constitution to the sheriff and ask him if it is the law of the land," this person added. "If it is, their corporates statutes are not law. If it is not, at least you have forced him into admitting it." More related news can be found at BigGovernment.news. Sources for this article include: TheGuardian.com NaturalNews.com
Copy