5 ms·

> They believe that Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch enforces them, and the Judicial branch interprets them. They believe that the Executive branch

> They believe that Congress makes the laws, the Executive branch enforces them, and the Judicial branch interprets them. They believe that the Executive branch and the Judicial branch have been compensating for Congressional failure for too long and they have been very clear that they're intent on undoing that and rolling the system back to how they believe it should be. If Congress wants to delegate authority for micro-managing things to agencies, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? > Kagan cited as one example a hypothetical bill to regulate artificial intelligence. Congress, she said, “knows there are going to be gaps because Congress can hardly see a week in the future.” So it would want people “who actually know about AI and are accountable to the political process to make decisions” about artificial intelligence. Courts, she emphasized, “don’t even know what the questions are about AI,” much less the answers. * https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-d... If Congress doesn't like where an Executive agency is headed they can further change the Act governing it to clarify things. The guardrails can be set that way, and with-in them agencies—generally subject matter experts—can write and refine regulations as they are needed. The Executive agencies and departments are created by Congress. US regulatory agencies have authority because it was given to them by The People (through their elected representatives). The Judiciary seems to be limiting the Legislative here. Is there anything in the US Constitution that says Congress cannot delegate? * https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html

saint_fiasco 2y ago
Congress can still delegate the known unknowns. They can say "because we are not experts in this subject, we delegate to agency X the power to decide whether this should be done in X or Y way" What they cannot do anymore is delegate unknown unknowns. They cannot leave X and Y unspecified, the executive agencies cannot do things in Z way that Congress didn't enumerate, or α and β way that Congress didn't even conceive.
- p_j_w 2y ago
  >What they cannot do anymore is delegate unknown unknowns. And that's absurd. Congress should have the ability to do this. If they don't like what an agency is doing, they're perfectly able to amend the law.
  - cryptonector 2y ago
    It's not absurd. Those are "major questions" that need to be dealt with by elected people.
salawat 2y ago
>If Congress wants to delegate authority for micro-managing things to agencies, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? Because the Constitution defined the Legislative branch as the entry point for new laws. Not the Executive. Period. The Legislative branch, with the Power of the Purse, is more than capable of establishing the requisite in-house research apparata to allow the Branch to become quickly read up and fluent on anything. That was the purpose of the Library of Congress, and the Office of Technology Assessment. OTA, in particular, was dismantled by Congress because "why should we have this when all the lobbyists are so well informed anyway". I.e. an act of a group of politicians that should damn well know better than to blindly believe everything they are told/ignore everything they are specifically not told by special interests without corroborating reality first through the exercise of legislative subpoenas. Congress put it's eyes out in a desperate bid to make it that much easier to be held unaccountable for doing their jobs, necessitating delegation to the Executive, which was far easier to manage dealing with. >The Executive agencies and departments are created by Congress. US regulatory agencies have authority because it was given to them by The People (through their elected representatives). Yep. Those Agencies, however, should not be making corpuses of law (Administrative law; but I'll be charitable for argument sake, and grant that Administrative law is a necessary evil). Notwithstanding the above, the Judiciary damn well shouldn't be ignoring grievance redressing relevant to any Administrative law. The Executive cannot be allowed to be all rolled up in one lawmaker, enforcer, and interpreter of last resort. It completely undermines the principle of seperation of powers. Does that make life harder? Hell yes. Governing ain't supposed to be easy. It's high demand, high overhead, and wide blast radius at the Federal level. The fact the Legislature has gotten so bad at legislating should be a point of shame on us all.
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > Because the Constitution defined the Legislative branch as the entry point for new laws. And (some) delegation has been found to be Constitutional for (at least) a century: > Since 1935, the Court has not struck down a delegation to an administrative agency.15 Rather, the Court has approved, without deviation, Congress's ability to delegate power under broad standards.16 The Court has upheld, for example, delegations to administrative agencies to determine excessive profits during wartime,17 to determine unfair and inequitable distribution of voting power among securities holders,18 to fix fair and equitable commodities prices,19 to determine just and reasonable rates,20 and to regulate broadcast licensing as the public interest, convenience, or necessity require.21 * https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html From the original, unanimous, Chevron ruling: > When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. In such a case, federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones: "Our Constitution vests such responsibilities in the political branches." * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura.... It is the current reverse that is strange (Chevron was simply a codification of what was already happening for decades).
HDThoreaun 2y ago
Congress can delegate authority to the agencies. This ruling just says that they have to explicitly do so instead of chevrons ruling that agencies may interpret ambiguous statutes however they like.

saint_fiasco 2y ago

Congress can still delegate the known unknowns. They can say "because we are not experts in this subject, we delegate to agency X the power to decide whether this should be done in X or Y way" What they cannot do anymore is delegate unknown unknowns. They cannot leave X and Y unspecified, the executive agencies cannot do things in Z way that Congress didn't enumerate, or α and β way that Congress didn't even conceive.

p_j_w 2y ago
>What they cannot do anymore is delegate unknown unknowns. And that's absurd. Congress should have the ability to do this. If they don't like what an agency is doing, they're perfectly able to amend the law.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  It's not absurd. Those are "major questions" that need to be dealt with by elected people.

salawat 2y ago

>If Congress wants to delegate authority for micro-managing things to agencies, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? Because the Constitution defined the Legislative branch as the entry point for new laws. Not the Executive. Period. The Legislative branch, with the Power of the Purse, is more than capable of establishing the requisite in-house research apparata to allow the Branch to become quickly read up and fluent on anything. That was the purpose of the Library of Congress, and the Office of Technology Assessment. OTA, in particular, was dismantled by Congress because "why should we have this when all the lobbyists are so well informed anyway". I.e. an act of a group of politicians that should damn well know better than to blindly believe everything they are told/ignore everything they are specifically not told by special interests without corroborating reality first through the exercise of legislative subpoenas. Congress put it's eyes out in a desperate bid to make it that much easier to be held unaccountable for doing their jobs, necessitating delegation to the Executive, which was far easier to manage dealing with. >The Executive agencies and departments are created by Congress. US regulatory agencies have authority because it was given to them by The People (through their elected representatives). Yep. Those Agencies, however, should not be making corpuses of law (Administrative law; but I'll be charitable for argument sake, and grant that Administrative law is a necessary evil). Notwithstanding the above, the Judiciary damn well shouldn't be ignoring grievance redressing relevant to any Administrative law. The Executive cannot be allowed to be all rolled up in one lawmaker, enforcer, and interpreter of last resort. It completely undermines the principle of seperation of powers. Does that make life harder? Hell yes. Governing ain't supposed to be easy. It's high demand, high overhead, and wide blast radius at the Federal level. The fact the Legislature has gotten so bad at legislating should be a point of shame on us all.

throw0101b 2y ago
> Because the Constitution defined the Legislative branch as the entry point for new laws. And (some) delegation has been found to be Constitutional for (at least) a century: > Since 1935, the Court has not struck down a delegation to an administrative agency.15 Rather, the Court has approved, without deviation, Congress's ability to delegate power under broad standards.16 The Court has upheld, for example, delegations to administrative agencies to determine excessive profits during wartime,17 to determine unfair and inequitable distribution of voting power among securities holders,18 to fix fair and equitable commodities prices,19 to determine just and reasonable rates,20 and to regulate broadcast licensing as the public interest, convenience, or necessity require.21 * https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html From the original, unanimous, Chevron ruling: > When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. In such a case, federal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones: "Our Constitution vests such responsibilities in the political branches." * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura.... It is the current reverse that is strange (Chevron was simply a codification of what was already happening for decades).

HDThoreaun 2y ago

Congress can delegate authority to the agencies. This ruling just says that they have to explicitly do so instead of chevrons ruling that agencies may interpret ambiguous statutes however they like.