The bright side of Loper Bright

OK, I admit it. I’m a knee-jerk glass-is-three-quarters-full/one-quarter-empty type of guy. I think a court ruling or a new law that may seem ridiculous could be a very good thing in disguise.

Hence my reaction to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned the Chevron doctrine (another one of those pesky long-established rulings that conservatives don’t like to conserve).

Chevron , of course, is the seemingly logical policy that government agencies created by Congress to study and regulate stuff should be able to do their jobs without some judge who knows nothing about the subject overruling their expertise. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of point in having, say, an Environmental Protection Agency if it can’t protect the environment.

A lot of businesses would rather not be regulated and they finally got a conservative Supreme Court to strike down Chevron . Agencies can still decide facts but courts now get to decide what ambiguous regulatory laws mean if there’s a dispute. You can bet that any agency ruling that some company doesn’t like is going to be challenged as a law, not a fact. The arguments over whether something is a law or a fact are going to be philosophical and fascinating.

So is the environment doomed?

You’d think so based on some of the reactions to the ruling and maybe it’s true. But come on environmentalists, chin up. This could be the best thing that’s ever happened to you.

If conservatives can sue for over-regulation, now you can sue for under-regulation.

If conservatives can send their cases to that one judge in Texas, you guys can file with reasonable judges all over the country.

Then see who runs out of money to pay lawyers first. It’s the American way.

**I don’t understand. Favorite line from the Loper Bright ruling: “(T)he concept of ambiguity has always evaded meaningful definition.”

Ambiguity is ambiguous.

Meaninglessness? What do you think when someone describes themselves as a conservative or a liberal?

Think about that for a moment.

The Florida Supreme Court probably disagrees with most of you.

That court, in a recent ruling, said this: “The statement ‘I am a conservative’ is not partisan, either inherently or … when made during an election campaign in a predominantly Republican community… . To describe oneself as a ‘conservative’ does not signal bias (pro or con) toward anyone or on any issue.”

So it’s meaningless?

Well, maybe so. We are talking about elections … .

**Life in a small town. I like to recommend good wacky tales when I come across them. Here’s a new one from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that you just know a circuit judge had some fun writing: Mackey v. Rising.

What we have here is five years of litigation between a guy who once got convicted for breaking into a flower shop and a local city commissioner who used to be a backup dancer for the Chippendales traveling show.

Are you intrigued yet?

The litigation is over what the commissioner may or may not have said to the other guy’s mother and whether he said it on behalf of the government.

The conversation with the mom occurred after the commissioner “spent the evening relaxing at home while consuming ‘three or four’ cans of Miller Lite.”

This is the kind of detail court rulings need to have.