Your last paragraph puts it in perspective very well I think.
In his blog, Fisher says he was relieved the court didn't use the Chevron approach, but it seems like that would be preferable to red-lining the law as you say. Do you know why he said that?
EDIT: Nope, nevermind, Fisher didn't say that. Don't know where I read it.
The problem with Chevron is then it's left open for different administrations to interpret the statue differently. So I think Chevron wasn't really seen as an option in this case.
But wouldn't that be true all instances where the court invokes chevron? Including Cevron v. NRDC itself? If that's the case, it seems to me that administrative deference is really just a license for govt. agencies to interpret laws however they see fit (within bounds), in which case isn't that as dangerous as the court's new "broader context" precedent?
Comments
Your last paragraph puts it in perspective very well I think.
In his blog, Fisher says he was relieved the court didn't use the Chevron approach, but it seems like that would be preferable to red-lining the law as you say. Do you know why he said that?
EDIT: Nope, nevermind, Fisher didn't say that. Don't know where I read it.
The problem with Chevron is then it's left open for different administrations to interpret the statue differently. So I think Chevron wasn't really seen as an option in this case.
But wouldn't that be true all instances where the court invokes chevron? Including Cevron v. NRDC itself? If that's the case, it seems to me that administrative deference is really just a license for govt. agencies to interpret laws however they see fit (within bounds), in which case isn't that as dangerous as the court's new "broader context" precedent?