3 ms·
On paper, you're obviously correct. In practice, that is not nearly always the case. This is further complicated by Chevron deference, which has often shielde
by bmelton 11y ago
On paper, you're obviously correct. In practice, that is not nearly always the case. This is further complicated by Chevron deference, which has often shielded even the inquiry from getting far enough along in the process to be substantive.
- dragonwriter 11y agoIf your initial complaint had been about the Supreme Court finding excuses to avoid doing its job, rather than about Congress avoiding the need to make laws to do something by making laws to do exactly what they are supposedly avoiding making laws to do, I would have been more inclined to agree with you.
- bmelton 11y agoFair. Still, it's a collaborative effort. A lot of deference was assumed before Chevron, especially post-FDR, and as a result, Congress + agencies began exploiting that deference more and more, to the extent that it became somewhat codified in Chevron. The peril of stare decisis is that to be dutiful, SCOTUS must endeavor to abide previous decisions even when those decisions abdicated on matters of law. The net result is that the process is often exploited. Government's a big system, and I'm as wary to assign a central figure for blame as I will be hearing my uncle Roger describe any of his crackpot theories over Thanksgiving dinner this-coming Thursday, but I think it's naive to say that the government isn't getting away with things on occasion -- the discussion really is how often, and how much we should care. To that discussion, I don't aim to be instructive, as my own caring would likely be considered excessive by most, or perhaps overzealous.