5 ms·

Not the original poster, but yes, in a democracy I would like our elected lawmakers to do their job of making laws. I'm happy to have bills drafted by experts i

Not the original poster, but yes, in a democracy I would like our elected lawmakers to do their job of making laws. I'm happy to have bills drafted by experts in the regulatory bodies. However, those experts are not accountable in any direct way to those being governed by the laws/regulations that they create. I'm still attached to the whole "consent of the governed" idea. I'm highly opposed to "divine right of the technocrats (to whom we shall all bow for their superior knowledge and genetically encoded abilities)".

tankenmate 4y ago
The US Code is already 185,000 pages long. If every regulation derived from those laws was included it would easily come to 20x that amount; so about 3.6+ million pages long. If every page of that had to be scrutinised by Congress then the legislative branch would grind to a halt. Just like the fact that one person alone can't do everything in an organisation, Congress physically can't author, vote and oversee every regulation from every law. There just aren't enough hours in the day.
juve1996 4y ago
Congress could just as easily limit the powers of the EPA via vote now. This remedy still exists. The court overstepped, again, and in an unsurprisingly partisan way. Just what our country needs from its institutions...
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  Help me understand... The court which is voted on by representatives asked that the representatives enact the laws of land - their primary stated responsibility - instead of relying on unelected, unaccountable, and whim-shifting bureaucracies to determine law on their own as they see fit. And this is the court overstepping?
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    The bureaucracies are much more accountable than the courts. Congress can limit them at will, and so can the executive, at any time. And the head bureaucrats are not only appointed by elected representatives, unlike supreme court judges, they can be relieved of their powers at any time for any reason. The EPA wasn't determining law on their own. Congress decided to entrust them with the authority to regulate emissions of pollutants explicitly, and both Congress and the Executive can at any time limit their action if they feel like the EPA is overstepping. They did not, because both Congress and the Executive feels like the EPA is acting as they should.
    - mc32 4y ago
      The EPA can regulate pollution emissions --what the court said is they can't regulate the thing that produces emissions. Meaning, you can use the thing that causes pollution, if you use technology or any means to limit the emissions at or below those allowed by the regulations.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    Representatives do not vote for supreme court justices. Congress has the power to enact laws. If they give authority to some agency, that agency now has that authority. Congress gave certain authority to the EPA and more through the Clean Air Act. Congress can, after the fact, revoke, or add, or change authority, at any time, if there is enough support. There isn't enough support - because many people in this country have elected representatives that don't support that initiative. It's quite clear that the powers granted by the people (e.g. congress and the presidency, directly elected by the people, unlike the court) to the EPA through law (and the clean air act), enumerate these powers. These very laws can be repealed by further legislative action. This isn't a case of constitutionality and thus the court oversteps its power. Let the people repeal the laws if they think they're too bureaucratic.
    - xg15 4y ago
      I think this whole debate is missing the elephant in the room a bit, which is the partisan battle and stalemated congress. In a functioning democracy, would have found some compromise and enacted laws a long time ago - and no questionable procedural hacks would have been necessary.
      - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
        With agencies allowed to create law, it allowed congress to be exist in this dysfunctional state. Now, if anyone wants anything done at all, they’ll have to work together. Despite being irritatingly disproportionately older than the populous they represent, they’ve been allowed to act like children. I see this as a win.
        xg15 4y ago
        Why would they want to work together? Republicans have reached a particular outcome that is favourable to them with this verdict. Why would they be interested in passing any law that would bring back exactly the environmental protections they wanted to avoid in the first place?
    - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

tankenmate 4y ago

The US Code is already 185,000 pages long. If every regulation derived from those laws was included it would easily come to 20x that amount; so about 3.6+ million pages long. If every page of that had to be scrutinised by Congress then the legislative branch would grind to a halt. Just like the fact that one person alone can't do everything in an organisation, Congress physically can't author, vote and oversee every regulation from every law. There just aren't enough hours in the day.

juve1996 4y ago

Congress could just as easily limit the powers of the EPA via vote now. This remedy still exists. The court overstepped, again, and in an unsurprisingly partisan way. Just what our country needs from its institutions...

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
Help me understand... The court which is voted on by representatives asked that the representatives enact the laws of land - their primary stated responsibility - instead of relying on unelected, unaccountable, and whim-shifting bureaucracies to determine law on their own as they see fit. And this is the court overstepping?
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  The bureaucracies are much more accountable than the courts. Congress can limit them at will, and so can the executive, at any time. And the head bureaucrats are not only appointed by elected representatives, unlike supreme court judges, they can be relieved of their powers at any time for any reason. The EPA wasn't determining law on their own. Congress decided to entrust them with the authority to regulate emissions of pollutants explicitly, and both Congress and the Executive can at any time limit their action if they feel like the EPA is overstepping. They did not, because both Congress and the Executive feels like the EPA is acting as they should.
  - mc32 4y ago
    The EPA can regulate pollution emissions --what the court said is they can't regulate the thing that produces emissions. Meaning, you can use the thing that causes pollution, if you use technology or any means to limit the emissions at or below those allowed by the regulations.
- juve1996 4y ago
  Representatives do not vote for supreme court justices. Congress has the power to enact laws. If they give authority to some agency, that agency now has that authority. Congress gave certain authority to the EPA and more through the Clean Air Act. Congress can, after the fact, revoke, or add, or change authority, at any time, if there is enough support. There isn't enough support - because many people in this country have elected representatives that don't support that initiative. It's quite clear that the powers granted by the people (e.g. congress and the presidency, directly elected by the people, unlike the court) to the EPA through law (and the clean air act), enumerate these powers. These very laws can be repealed by further legislative action. This isn't a case of constitutionality and thus the court oversteps its power. Let the people repeal the laws if they think they're too bureaucratic.
  - xg15 4y ago
    I think this whole debate is missing the elephant in the room a bit, which is the partisan battle and stalemated congress. In a functioning democracy, would have found some compromise and enacted laws a long time ago - and no questionable procedural hacks would have been necessary.
    - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
      With agencies allowed to create law, it allowed congress to be exist in this dysfunctional state. Now, if anyone wants anything done at all, they’ll have to work together. Despite being irritatingly disproportionately older than the populous they represent, they’ve been allowed to act like children. I see this as a win.
      - xg15 4y ago
        Why would they want to work together? Republicans have reached a particular outcome that is favourable to them with this verdict. Why would they be interested in passing any law that would bring back exactly the environmental protections they wanted to avoid in the first place?
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago