[ultrasaurus]

It's probably worth noting that "someone who has litigated Chevron cases" and presumably will litigate again has a real bias to look supportive of the supreme court (or any judge who could decide his cases).

For the rest of us, whether you agree with the outcome of decision or not, it overturns a 40 year old precedent which is:

* old enough that several congresses have had a chance to clarify any older laws and have made new laws with it on the books

* not so old that it's obviously from a different era and doesn't make sense today

* and always icky from a stare decisis perspective

fwiw, from a HN perspective, I'm mostly interested in how the SC works as a process with politics aside.

[rayiner]

It’s also fair to point out that someone who doesn’t litigate administrative law cases probably isn’t qualified to offer an opinion on an interpretive practice in administrative law.

But I’m curious to understand where this newfound sanctification of precedent comes from. Stare decisis has always been discretionary. The Supreme Court overturned 34 precedents in the 1970s: https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overru.... Many of those were 50+ years old. It overturned about two dozen in the 1980s and 1990:. The current Supreme Court has overturned just 10 in 6 years and is on pace to overturn 15-16 over ten years, about the same number as from 2000-2010.

In reality, we are in a period of historically high respect for precedent. So ask yourself why this is suddenly being painted as a period of judicial activism.

[skhunted]

The court is clearly going in the direction of activism in the sense of abandoning major precedents that have been around for many decades. Abortion, fair share union dues, Chevron, Citizens United, gutting the Voting Rights Act (thousands of polling stations have been shut down in recent years), and this week effectively legalizing bribery of government officials. The combination of these and other precedents is ushering in a new era of intensifying regulatory capture and with the people effectively losing power.

The label for what this is called is irrelevant. It’s the consequences of this that matter and the lower courts see where this court is heading and they will rule accordingly. These decisions have been extremely in terms of detriment to the country. This court will not be looked upon favorably in the future.

[guntars]

See my (now buried) comment on cumulative years of precedent overturned using the same source:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40838536

I think we can both agree that the count of precedents overturned is important, but so is the time something has been established law, as it affects more decisions made by the individuals and the legislature.

[jhp123]

in every case in which there is a prior precedent, the first issue is the issue of stare decisis. And the presumption is that the court will follow its prior precedents. There needs to be a special justification for overruling a prior precedent.