3 ms·
I would call it a concern rather than a problem. It'll be interesting, and likely frustrating, to see what what the Supreme Court does but it is worth noting so
by avs733 3y ago
I would call it a concern rather than a problem. It'll be interesting, and likely frustrating, to see what what the Supreme Court does but it is worth noting some potential upsides - for both parties to a case- of this system.
The reasoning for the internal administrative courts is because these (SEC, NLRA, etc.) are highly esoteric and detailed areas of the law. Having people be judges in these cases who are experts can be a positive so they don't get BS'ed and can resolve issues efficiently and effectively and consistently. That is very different from the experience of dealing with federal courts at large where a judge may be hearing a murder trial one day and a shareholder lawsuit the next. Those courts ALREADY have huge backlogs so adding this case load to them is likely to be disastrous as well as resulting in more manifestly unfair outcomes when one side is able to delay to the point where remedies aren't meaningful. The argument that they are political (your overturning) also applies pretty damn well to EVERY court these days, not just internal administrative ones.
I think a useful analogy is to how frustrated much of HN gets every time federal judges struggle to grok technology - whether it be the internet, software code, or privacy. Imagine if there was some sort of court dedicated to dealing with 'technology stuff' where the judges had a background in the relevant areas to make sure reality won the day. There is a place for generalists and a place for specialists. Maybe this isn't the best way to handle it but it is a way.
- granzymes 3y agoWe already have Article III judges who specialize (bankruptcy judges, the Federal Circuit) so I don’t see why we can’t pull the ALJs out of the agencies and make them into specialized tribunals with direct appeal to the appellate courts. Having dedicated judges who are knowledgeable about their subject matter doesn’t mean we need to let the agencies put their thumb on the scale. That neatly solves every issue.
- avs733 3y agoWe could - we haven't. We probably should - we haven't. Its also worth noting that these decisions by administrative judges are already reviewable by appellate courts. There are over 1900 administrative law judges. There are around 900 TOTAL Article III juges, including appellate courts. Finally, I'll note that (my opinion) whether people think this is a good idea should be held independent of the fact that most of these arguments are being raised in bad faith by people with more power to avoid the legal process not so they can meaningfully avail themselves of it.
- granzymes 3y agoThe overwhelming majority of ALJs are in the Social Security Administration dealing with claim disputes. I don’t think anyone has a problem with that, and we can leave them alone. The NLRB, SEC, FTC. These cases belong in a real Article III court. Once we solve this issue, people can’t raise it in bad faith anymore to weasel out of consequences. Every litigant wants to win, and I agree that they are raising these issues to attack proceedings that they might lose on the merits. I believe it was Justice Kagan who said last term that there are a finite number of Constitutional issues with agency structure. Let’s just fix them all now.
- avs733 3y ago>I don’t think anyone has a problem with that, and we can leave them alone. The NLRB, SEC, FTC. These cases belong in a real Article III court. So in other words, its a judgement question which should be left up to the legislature? What is the constitutional basis for that differentiation? The only difference I can see is a comfort subjecting individuals to this process and a discomfort subjecting corporations to it.
- granzymes 3y agoThe difference is that the Social Security Administration is administering a public benefit which has no analogy to a suit at common law. But we need Congress to fix this regardless. The Supreme Court can break it but can’t fix it.