7 ms·

They have a reasonable case. The idea of "independent federal agencies" that make substantive policy, are immune to democratic control, and also get to play-ac

They have a reasonable case. The idea of "independent federal agencies" that make substantive policy, are immune to democratic control, and also get to play-act as pseudo judicial bodies is a constitutional abomination.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Perhaps so, but... that sure makes it look like they have no reasonable answer to the allegations against them.
- justrealist 3y ago
  Why are they obligated to answer? The allegations are legal soup anyway. The NLRB made up on the spot that criticism of the CEO was protected speech. There's nothing to say other than "you just made up that rule".
taylodl 3y ago
THEY ARE NOT immune from democratic control. That's a common falsehood promoted by the extreme right. Congress has the power to reign them in any time they choose. Congress simply prefers to whimp out and lie to their constituents that "there's nothing they can do" and transfer blame to someone else.
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  So they're only immune from democratic control in reality, but technically they could be reigned in if the people that are happy to let them run free would decide to 180 their positions? Sounds like effective democratic control to me.
- coolhand2120 3y ago
  Woah there. Congress does not have the right to delegate the authority given to them by the constitution. So it is indeed unconstitutional. A great many of the alphabet soup agencies are in this boat. Whole lot of unconstitutional behavior going around and nobody really bats an eye.
  - HenryPrickett 3y ago
    On what basis do you believe Congress is not allowed to delegate any power. The idea that statutes cannot allow for administrative rulemaking is some psycho libertarian bullshit because it is literally impossible to run an administrative state where the nuts and bolts (rather than just the goals, outcomes, and boundaries) of the administration of law must be handled legislatively. Read this and do better https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html.
    - avs733 3y ago
      I suspect several people in this thread are conflating the non-delegation doctrine with the major questions doctrine, which is a confusing narrative that has been pushed to make the major questions doctrine seem less whackado.
      - 303uru 3y ago
        Reminder that the major questions doctrine is complete BS invented out of thin air.
        avs733 3y ago
        ...I assumed that was assumed :)
    - coolhand2120 3y ago
      The courts disagree. https://reason.com/2023/11/13/gun-hobbyists-and-liberty-win-big-in-court/ https://reason.com/2023/11/13/gun-hobbyists-and-liberty-win-... Agencies cannot make law. SCOTUS has repeatedly said congress cannot delegate legislative authorities to other agencies. That they do it anyway does not make it constitutional.
      - HenryPrickett 3y ago
        Agencies don't make law. They make rules which implement and execute the statutes which provide for their authority. This has been upheld as valid in many, many cases.
- slavboj 3y ago
  Executive departments not answerable to the President are unconstitutional, full stop. We do not allow Congress to delegate its authority and/or strip authority from the President and move it into a fourth branch of government.
  - tedivm 3y ago
    The Supreme Court, which is who decides what is unconstitutional, has spent hundreds of years disagreeing with you. Full Stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un... I always find it weird when people make statements like yours, full of confidence that what they are saying is the way everything is and should be, when they are literally completely and utterly wrong. What you have is an opinion of how you think the government should be run, based on your interpretation of the constitution. The reality is that the Supreme Court thinks your interpretation is wrong, and since they're the deciding factor that means your interpretation is wrong.
    - slavboj 3y ago
      They can be "independent", provided the President is able to fire them. That is the mechanism for accountability. NLRB directors only being fireable for cause, rather than because the people's elected representative chooses to can them as a matter of state policy, is unconstitutional. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884958645/supreme-court-rules-that-the-structure-of-key-independent-agency-is-unconstituti https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884958645/supreme-court-rules...
      - averysmallbird 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - averysmallbird 3y ago
    You may have that political position, but you're wrong on the merits. The non-delegation doctrine exists, but independent agencies survive because its administrators are Presidentially appointed and Congressionally confirmed, and other factors. Other commenters have rightfully also pointed out that you probably have more chance to engage in the democratic process with an independent agency, which also tend to have greater representation from the political party not in control of the Presidency. It would be correct to say that there are new attacks on the administrative courts systems and extent of deference to administrative rulemaking. But you're wrong about independent agencies.
tedivm 3y ago
We've had "independent federal agencies" since before we had the constitution. Our entire economy, specifically the federal reserve, is based on independent agencies. The case in question isn't about whether independent agencies can exist or not. The claim is that the way the panel is appointed is not constitutional. If they win the case then it would simply require the board to be appointed in a more specific way. > SpaceX in its lawsuit claims that, because federal law only allows board members and administrative judges to be removed for cause, and not at will, the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional. The lawsuit seeks to block the NLRB case from moving forward. There's also a second claim that they should be allowed a jury trial. > In its lawsuit, however, SpaceX claims that the NLRB proceedings violate the company’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.” The constitutionality of the agency itself isn't what's being discussed.
- slavboj 3y ago
  "Independent" just meaning "not part of a cabinet secretariat" is not at issue. When the claim is that the governance structure and the pseudo judicial hearings by which they actually exercise authority are unconstitutional it's fair to qualify the argument as "the agency is unconstitutional". No one would have an issue if the board and officers were fireable by the president at will, like they are at say the CIA or EPA, and if they had to actually go to court to allege violations of the law.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tootie 3y ago
Yeah, that's not true at all. The NLRB, like all agencies, was created by act of congress and given a remit to regulate areas of civic life within a specific range of factors. A complainant can try to argue that a specific regulation is outside their remit or otherwise in contravention to other Constitutional protections, but they can't just say the agency has no right to make rules. There's a gigantic stack of precedent that Congress or the courts can rein in specific rules, but so long as they within the bounds set in their charter, they are absolutely allowed to make new rules with the force of law (ie can the EPA regulate carbon emissions as "pollution"). It's just standard bureaucracy since it would be utterly impossible to put every single minute regulation up for Congressional debate. Especially when they require niche technical expertise to even understand.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

Perhaps so, but... that sure makes it look like they have no reasonable answer to the allegations against them.

justrealist 3y ago
Why are they obligated to answer? The allegations are legal soup anyway. The NLRB made up on the spot that criticism of the CEO was protected speech. There's nothing to say other than "you just made up that rule".

taylodl 3y ago

THEY ARE NOT immune from democratic control. That's a common falsehood promoted by the extreme right. Congress has the power to reign them in any time they choose. Congress simply prefers to whimp out and lie to their constituents that "there's nothing they can do" and transfer blame to someone else.

sickofparadox 3y ago
So they're only immune from democratic control in reality, but technically they could be reigned in if the people that are happy to let them run free would decide to 180 their positions? Sounds like effective democratic control to me.
coolhand2120 3y ago
Woah there. Congress does not have the right to delegate the authority given to them by the constitution. So it is indeed unconstitutional. A great many of the alphabet soup agencies are in this boat. Whole lot of unconstitutional behavior going around and nobody really bats an eye.
- HenryPrickett 3y ago
  On what basis do you believe Congress is not allowed to delegate any power. The idea that statutes cannot allow for administrative rulemaking is some psycho libertarian bullshit because it is literally impossible to run an administrative state where the nuts and bolts (rather than just the goals, outcomes, and boundaries) of the administration of law must be handled legislatively. Read this and do better https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html.
  - avs733 3y ago
    I suspect several people in this thread are conflating the non-delegation doctrine with the major questions doctrine, which is a confusing narrative that has been pushed to make the major questions doctrine seem less whackado.
    - 303uru 3y ago
      Reminder that the major questions doctrine is complete BS invented out of thin air.
      - avs733 3y ago
        ...I assumed that was assumed :)
  - coolhand2120 3y ago
    The courts disagree. https://reason.com/2023/11/13/gun-hobbyists-and-liberty-win-big-in-court/ https://reason.com/2023/11/13/gun-hobbyists-and-liberty-win-... Agencies cannot make law. SCOTUS has repeatedly said congress cannot delegate legislative authorities to other agencies. That they do it anyway does not make it constitutional.
    - HenryPrickett 3y ago
      Agencies don't make law. They make rules which implement and execute the statutes which provide for their authority. This has been upheld as valid in many, many cases.
slavboj 3y ago
Executive departments not answerable to the President are unconstitutional, full stop. We do not allow Congress to delegate its authority and/or strip authority from the President and move it into a fourth branch of government.
- tedivm 3y ago
  The Supreme Court, which is who decides what is unconstitutional, has spent hundreds of years disagreeing with you. Full Stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un... I always find it weird when people make statements like yours, full of confidence that what they are saying is the way everything is and should be, when they are literally completely and utterly wrong. What you have is an opinion of how you think the government should be run, based on your interpretation of the constitution. The reality is that the Supreme Court thinks your interpretation is wrong, and since they're the deciding factor that means your interpretation is wrong.
  - slavboj 3y ago
    They can be "independent", provided the President is able to fire them. That is the mechanism for accountability. NLRB directors only being fireable for cause, rather than because the people's elected representative chooses to can them as a matter of state policy, is unconstitutional. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884958645/supreme-court-rules-that-the-structure-of-key-independent-agency-is-unconstituti https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/884958645/supreme-court-rules...
    - averysmallbird 3y ago
      [flagged]
- averysmallbird 3y ago
  You may have that political position, but you're wrong on the merits. The non-delegation doctrine exists, but independent agencies survive because its administrators are Presidentially appointed and Congressionally confirmed, and other factors. Other commenters have rightfully also pointed out that you probably have more chance to engage in the democratic process with an independent agency, which also tend to have greater representation from the political party not in control of the Presidency. It would be correct to say that there are new attacks on the administrative courts systems and extent of deference to administrative rulemaking. But you're wrong about independent agencies.

tedivm 3y ago

We've had "independent federal agencies" since before we had the constitution. Our entire economy, specifically the federal reserve, is based on independent agencies. The case in question isn't about whether independent agencies can exist or not. The claim is that the way the panel is appointed is not constitutional. If they win the case then it would simply require the board to be appointed in a more specific way. > SpaceX in its lawsuit claims that, because federal law only allows board members and administrative judges to be removed for cause, and not at will, the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional. The lawsuit seeks to block the NLRB case from moving forward. There's also a second claim that they should be allowed a jury trial. > In its lawsuit, however, SpaceX claims that the NLRB proceedings violate the company’s “constitutional right to trial by jury.” The constitutionality of the agency itself isn't what's being discussed.

slavboj 3y ago
"Independent" just meaning "not part of a cabinet secretariat" is not at issue. When the claim is that the governance structure and the pseudo judicial hearings by which they actually exercise authority are unconstitutional it's fair to qualify the argument as "the agency is unconstitutional". No one would have an issue if the board and officers were fireable by the president at will, like they are at say the CIA or EPA, and if they had to actually go to court to allege violations of the law.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tootie 3y ago

Yeah, that's not true at all. The NLRB, like all agencies, was created by act of congress and given a remit to regulate areas of civic life within a specific range of factors. A complainant can try to argue that a specific regulation is outside their remit or otherwise in contravention to other Constitutional protections, but they can't just say the agency has no right to make rules. There's a gigantic stack of precedent that Congress or the courts can rein in specific rules, but so long as they within the bounds set in their charter, they are absolutely allowed to make new rules with the force of law (ie can the EPA regulate carbon emissions as "pollution"). It's just standard bureaucracy since it would be utterly impossible to put every single minute regulation up for Congressional debate. Especially when they require niche technical expertise to even understand.