3 ms·

Everyone freaks out about social issues with SCOTUS (which is understandable), but their real impact is on economics. The destruction they've laid on the labor

by xxpor 6y ago

Everyone freaks out about social issues with SCOTUS (which is understandable), but their real impact is on economics. The destruction they've laid on the labor movement and help for big businesses is immense. Just look at the commentary around overturning Chevron deference and non-delegation. Absolutely apocalyptic.

rayiner 6y ago
Is it would be positively apocalyptic to reign in the all-powerful unelected fourth branch of government the framers conveniently forgot to list in the constitution. Or to prevent Congress from creating executive branch entities that exercise the powers of all three branches of government. The SEC can make rules, sue you for violating them, and then adjudicate your violation, all under one roof. Pretty sure that’s exactly how Congress intended separation of powers to work!
- xxpor 6y ago
  >adjudicate your violation, all under one roof. You still have Article III remedies in that case. If the extreme version of non-delegation took hold, it would be the end of all rational regulation. Do you REALLY want Congress writing technical documents about effective isotropic radiated power? Or the shape of curb ramps?
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I don’t see how having article III remedies addresses the separation of powers issue. It just means you can kinda maybe fix up the damage afterward. I think it’s fair to ask how far a non-delegation principle should go. There is clearly a continuum between legislation and enforcement discretion. But does that mean we should have no non-delegation principle at all? Is there a definable middle ground between Congress leaving it to executive discretion address technical minutea and Congress delegating oversight over entire sections of the economy to unelected bodies that can serve as judge, jury, and executioner? There are ways to maintain an administrative state without stuffing everything into the executive branch: https://www.theregreview.org/2019/12/18/rappaport-stronger-separation-powers-administrative-agencies/ https://www.theregreview.org/2019/12/18/rappaport-stronger-s...
rcpt 6y ago
They had a chance to end California's housing disaster in Nordlinger vs. Hahn but ruled in the favor of landlords and speculators. Justice Stevens even admitted that the law is unlikely to change under standard democratic processes. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html
sjy 6y ago
Could you explain what you mean here? I assume from your reply to 'rayiner that you are criticising recent decisions limiting Chevron deference and applying the nondelegation doctrine. It’s confusing, because big business won the case establishing Chevron deference. Whether the principle helps big business or not depends on big business’s relationship with the relevant regulator. Is the “apocalyptic” commentary describing the past effects of Chevron deference, the current effects of limiting it, or the potential effects of future decisions further limiting it?

by xxpor 6y ago

rayiner 6y ago

Is it would be positively apocalyptic to reign in the all-powerful unelected fourth branch of government the framers conveniently forgot to list in the constitution. Or to prevent Congress from creating executive branch entities that exercise the powers of all three branches of government. The SEC can make rules, sue you for violating them, and then adjudicate your violation, all under one roof. Pretty sure that’s exactly how Congress intended separation of powers to work!

xxpor 6y ago
>adjudicate your violation, all under one roof. You still have Article III remedies in that case. If the extreme version of non-delegation took hold, it would be the end of all rational regulation. Do you REALLY want Congress writing technical documents about effective isotropic radiated power? Or the shape of curb ramps?
- rayiner 6y ago
  I don’t see how having article III remedies addresses the separation of powers issue. It just means you can kinda maybe fix up the damage afterward. I think it’s fair to ask how far a non-delegation principle should go. There is clearly a continuum between legislation and enforcement discretion. But does that mean we should have no non-delegation principle at all? Is there a definable middle ground between Congress leaving it to executive discretion address technical minutea and Congress delegating oversight over entire sections of the economy to unelected bodies that can serve as judge, jury, and executioner? There are ways to maintain an administrative state without stuffing everything into the executive branch: https://www.theregreview.org/2019/12/18/rappaport-stronger-separation-powers-administrative-agencies/ https://www.theregreview.org/2019/12/18/rappaport-stronger-s...

rcpt 6y ago

They had a chance to end California's housing disaster in Nordlinger vs. Hahn but ruled in the favor of landlords and speculators. Justice Stevens even admitted that the law is unlikely to change under standard democratic processes. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1912.ZD.html

sjy 6y ago

Could you explain what you mean here? I assume from your reply to 'rayiner that you are criticising recent decisions limiting Chevron deference and applying the nondelegation doctrine. It’s confusing, because big business won the case establishing Chevron deference. Whether the principle helps big business or not depends on big business’s relationship with the relevant regulator. Is the “apocalyptic” commentary describing the past effects of Chevron deference, the current effects of limiting it, or the potential effects of future decisions further limiting it?