5 ms·
SCOTUS wants to strip FDA and other agencies of their power to do this.
by aaomidi 3y ago
SCOTUS wants to strip FDA and other agencies of their power to do this.
- baggy_trough 3y agoto do this on their own.
- waldothedog 3y agoI am confused by this comment. I think you’re suggesting that there should be legislature, or executive order to support a ban on a chemical?
- photonbeam 3y agoI read it as legislation
- blindriver 3y agoAn unelected group of bureaucrats should not have the power to enforce their own beliefs. It should come from congress because citizens elected them. The bureaucrats were never elected.
- UncleOxidant 3y agoHowever, I do not expect the average congressperson to have the level of expertise in multiple disciplines (like biochemistry, oncology, endocrinology, etc.) required to make decisions about these sorts of things. I'm also not inclined to think that the average congressperson would do the right thing in regards to regulating business when large donations to their campaigns from those industries are involved.
- google234123 3y agoYeah, but a congressperson might care if the change increases food prices where the expert might just care about their little sliver of interest..
- aaomidi 3y agoExcept nothing in the US is a direct democracy already? Your argument falls apart because the entire point is that we elect representatives. Those representatives can not do _everything_ themselves. Even the most basic city government has elected and appointed positions. Do you elect every single cabinet member into office? How about all the people that work in those offices?
- beowulfey 3y agoEverything in politics is about delegating authority. The bureaucrats were indirectly elected by the bureaucrats we did elect who gave them their authority. It's also why citizens don't vote on laws themselves.
- rayiner 3y agoSCOTUS wants Congress to do its job of making laws, instead of having an unconstitutional fourth branch of government exercises all the powers of the other three branches. The system of checks and balances you learned in school has become a farce, with agencies making rules with the force of law, prosecuting violators for breaking those rules, and adjudicating those violations in their own administrative court systems.
- ethanbond 3y agoCan companies not escalate these types of battles into the traditional justice system?
- rayiner 3y agoYou can appeal, but that’s not the same. For adjudications, the courts defer to the agency’s findings, as if it were a lower court (which it isn’t). You can also appeal rulemakings. But that creates this crazy system where the executive branch makes the law, and then random interested parties hold up the law in the courts for years. So the executive branch and judicial branch both have their fingers in the pie—the only branch that doesn’t is the one that’s actually supposed to make the law, Congress.
- ethanbond 3y agoCongress obviously passed laws that authorize the executive to create and enforce rules. Everything you’re describing as some huge travesty sounds like a sensible and meaningful optimization of a system that already tends to be extremely overburdened. I don’t want every single corporate rule breaking attempt to immediately compete with murders for courtroom time. Obviously everyone should have the right to use the justice system if they need to, and they do have that right.
- rayiner 3y ago> Congress obviously passed laws that authorize the executive to create and enforce rules Those “rules” are equivalent to laws. The whole point of a written Constitution is to enforce fundamental structural constraints on the government, such as Congress rather than the executive being the one that makes laws.
- jjtheblunt 3y agoWhat? Where is that documented?
- moviet 3y agoI think the comment is referring to the Court’s precedent of “chevron deference,” which is the idea that courts should defer to government agencies to decide how to apply laws whose meaning may be unclear. More info here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- EasyMark 3y agoImagine SCOTUS thinking that Congress would have time and capability to pass a law on every chemical that the FDA has banned over its existence in order to protect the country. We're talking about the same group that contains people like Gaetz, Boebert, and that dude that thought you could capsize an island.
- sigzero 3y agoThat isn't all what the SCOTUS wants. The SCOTUS wants Congress to do their job and not an "agency".