Yes! And that really comes across in the film. Have you seen it? I think you would enjoy it

And I did greatly enjoy ‘A Complete Unknown’, which makes it very clear that Dylan is the villain

In all honesty it is kind of a bit. I don’t *hate* Dylan. But I do hate exactly the phenomenon that you are talking about: the compulsory obeisance. When I was young it seemed terrible to still be in thrall to the dead legends of the 1960s, when there was so much excitement in our own time

Thanks!

I liked the Jevons Paradox when it was playing the small clubs

Tradition has it that the Greeks have English accents when the Romans have American accents. No Romans in the Odyssey, so maybe not needed here. Quite a few Brits I’m the cast, though

I kid, of course. Really looking forward to this. Presumably it’s Pattinson as Odysseus, Holland as Telemachus, Zendaya as Nausicaa, Hathaway as Penelope, Nyong’o as Calypso and Damon as Mentor. Although Hathaway as Calypso and Nyong’o as Penelope might be more interesting casting

Loved those books as a teenager. Picked them up again for $1.99 each recently, but I haven’t yet gone back to them. Slightly scared to see if they still hold up

The article's conclusion: "Federal agencies will need to adapt to new judicial scrutiny, legislators may face increased pressure to craft more precise laws, and courts will brace for a heavier caseload as they take on a more prominent role in statutory interpretation."

Via @eduardoraul.bsky.social, this is an excellent American Bar Association article on the end of Chevron deference. Key quote: it is "a tectonic shift in administrative law and could reshape the landscape of American governance for years to come." www.americanbar.org/groups/busin...

@meidastouch.com did a podcast on how legal groups will be able to use Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce ruling to help block the Republicans' agenda as well.

Thanks!

But in the short and medium term, there is going to be a lot more uncertainty over what lines the courts will take. And that could have a big impact on policy and regulation, in energy and in many other areas. How will it play out? We will find out! (12/12)

I have some sympathy for the view that in the long (long) term, ending Chevron deference will lead to greater stability in policy. The interpretation of the law will not change with every change in administration; it will be what the courts say it is, until the law is changed. (11/x)

It's important to remember that when SCOTUS first created the doctrine in its Chevron decision in 1985, it was seen as a victory for business, because it made courts more inclined to accept the legal interpretations offered by the Reagan administration. Now we are back to the status quo ante. (10/x)

The end of Chevron deference was often presented as a check on the ambitions of an activist Democratic administration. But it could equally impede a Republican presidency. (9/x)

That creates problems for both Democratic and Republican administrations seeking to push through their policy agendas. Anything they try to do will be more vulnerable to legal challenges. (8/x)

The doctrine of Chevron deference held that where a law was ambiguous, courts should defer the executive agency’s interpretation, so long as it was "reasonable". With that doctrine gone, courts have to decide for themselves how the law should be interpreted. (7/x)

So we will have a DC Circuit court that already - back in 2021 - felt able to reject FERC decisions that it saw as not in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Now its authority has been strengthened by the SCOTUS decision in June to scrap Chevron deference. (6/x)