3 ms·

Everything cannot be litigated. Litigation is expensive and time consuming. Also there are not enough judges to take that kind of work load. Judgements by low

Everything cannot be litigated. Litigation is expensive and time consuming. Also there are not enough judges to take that kind of work load. Judgements by lower courts don’t set precedents, so the same issue would be litigated 1000s of times each judge of jury giving different results. Higher courts have even less judges. Laws are guidelines, the real details of any law is in the code or regulations built around it. Chevron is about whether regulations have force of law or not .

Gormo 4y ago
> Everything cannot be litigated. Litigation is expensive and time consuming. Anything that can't be litigated should not be done. The due process clause is there for a reason -- if the only mechanism that ensures that due process is being followed, and the constitution is being obeyed, is not able to be applied to the execution of a given policy, then that policy should be preemptively off-limits until it can be retooled to make the necessary oversight feasible.
UIUC_06 4y ago
You might want to study up on legal drafting & construction. It IS possible to write laws that are reasonably broad without just saying "the agency will do whatever it wants here." Maybe it's not easy, but that's what the lawyers learn in law school.
- manquer 4y ago
  The same good lawyers can also write good regulation that is transparent , clear and unambiguous if they could write good law. Laws take a long time to change, regulations can change faster. I may not know much about legal drafting & construction but in my experience negotiating enough contracts to know that it is very very hard to articulate and cover all the scenarios that you can encounter. No lawyer I have worked with has drafted something so unambiguous and perfect that there was no room for interpretation or conflicting clauses and everyone was clear and there was no dispute. There is no reason to trust the judiciary anymore than the executive, they are just as capricious, inefficient and bureaucratic as the executive.
  - UIUC_06 4y ago
    Speed of change is not an argument for the administrative state. If anything, it's an argument against. Laws delegating powers to executive agencies are done all the time, some successfully, some not. I've never heard anyone say that the FAA is overstepping its statutory authority, for example. Nor the PTO. Congress might disagree with what they're doing, but that's different than saying "they have no business regulating that." Lastly, it's not about what branch you trust more. Judges were at least appointed by someone who was elected, not hired by a Civil Servant.

Gormo 4y ago

> Everything cannot be litigated. Litigation is expensive and time consuming. Anything that can't be litigated should not be done. The due process clause is there for a reason -- if the only mechanism that ensures that due process is being followed, and the constitution is being obeyed, is not able to be applied to the execution of a given policy, then that policy should be preemptively off-limits until it can be retooled to make the necessary oversight feasible.

UIUC_06 4y ago

You might want to study up on legal drafting & construction. It IS possible to write laws that are reasonably broad without just saying "the agency will do whatever it wants here." Maybe it's not easy, but that's what the lawyers learn in law school.

manquer 4y ago
The same good lawyers can also write good regulation that is transparent , clear and unambiguous if they could write good law. Laws take a long time to change, regulations can change faster. I may not know much about legal drafting & construction but in my experience negotiating enough contracts to know that it is very very hard to articulate and cover all the scenarios that you can encounter. No lawyer I have worked with has drafted something so unambiguous and perfect that there was no room for interpretation or conflicting clauses and everyone was clear and there was no dispute. There is no reason to trust the judiciary anymore than the executive, they are just as capricious, inefficient and bureaucratic as the executive.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  Speed of change is not an argument for the administrative state. If anything, it's an argument against. Laws delegating powers to executive agencies are done all the time, some successfully, some not. I've never heard anyone say that the FAA is overstepping its statutory authority, for example. Nor the PTO. Congress might disagree with what they're doing, but that's different than saying "they have no business regulating that." Lastly, it's not about what branch you trust more. Judges were at least appointed by someone who was elected, not hired by a Civil Servant.