3 ms·

Can companies not escalate these types of battles into the traditional justice system?

rayiner 3y ago
You 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 ago
  Congress 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.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      And one of those “constraints” is that Congress is empowered to create federal agencies to execute its laws. The rules under those agencies are backed by enabling legislation, and if you disagree with the connection between a rule and its enabling legislation, you can go to court and make that argument. I think what you’re really getting at is you’d prefer a far more dysfunctional government, since the actual moral/legal foundation would be no different. All of the federal agencies and their rules are derivative of Congressional acts, and again, if you disagree you can just go to court. Exactly as it would be if, for some reason, we decided that congress had to pass every single individual rule and sub rule and subsubrule and subsubsubrule exception 2 infraction 6 exemption 16.a and if, to combat any assessment of infraction, you had to go directly into the actual judicial system. All the legal basis is identical, the only thing that’s different is how wildly ineffective it’d be. If that’s your goal, just say it so we can move on.

You 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 ago
Congress 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.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    And one of those “constraints” is that Congress is empowered to create federal agencies to execute its laws. The rules under those agencies are backed by enabling legislation, and if you disagree with the connection between a rule and its enabling legislation, you can go to court and make that argument. I think what you’re really getting at is you’d prefer a far more dysfunctional government, since the actual moral/legal foundation would be no different. All of the federal agencies and their rules are derivative of Congressional acts, and again, if you disagree you can just go to court. Exactly as it would be if, for some reason, we decided that congress had to pass every single individual rule and sub rule and subsubrule and subsubsubrule exception 2 infraction 6 exemption 16.a and if, to combat any assessment of infraction, you had to go directly into the actual judicial system. All the legal basis is identical, the only thing that’s different is how wildly ineffective it’d be. If that’s your goal, just say it so we can move on.