Comments on: NLRB’s “impractical, dangerous” Browning-Ferris ruling

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 22 Sep 2015 00:54:39 +0000

Allan, you apparently don’t follow the Board much. Board rulings are overturned relatively frequently. Most in labor law circles expect this one to be overturned.

By: Allan

Allan — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 14:40:41 +0000

I did not claim that there was a constitutional challenge.

I believe that the chancinig of prevailing are slim. Rarely are agency actions overturned (when they are, it is big news, which makes it seem that it happens more than it does). This is due to the Chevron deference principle. I doubt that the Supremes would find that this is a big enough case to warrant scrapping the Chevron deference.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:51:11 +0000

Who said anything about a constitutional challenge? Both liberals and conservatives supposedly agree that it is proper for the courts to review whether the NLRB is conforming its actions to its authorizing statute, the NLRA, and whether or not Chevron deference applies is hardly the only question they will ask. (Some language in King v. Burwell does suggest that the Court is shrinking the scope of such deference, especially in “big” cases.)

Ridiculous, indeed.

By: Allan

Allan — Mon, 21 Sep 2015 13:39:33 +0000

A ridiculous assertion. I think he has a decent argument that the NLRB should not have taken the action as a matter of policy. I don’t think his argument that the NLRB is precluded from taking the action has much of a chance, unless the Court finds that the decision is so important that Chevron does not apply. And I cannot believe that it falls into that area.

Anyone else find it ironic that conservatives turn to the courts to overturn economic policies that are consitutional on their face, after criticizing liberals for doing the same thing for the previous century?