4 ms·
I do not expect Congress to atomically approve or disapprove every regulatory action. That is a straw man. I expect them to write clear laws that state what a
by kogus 2y ago
I do not expect Congress to atomically approve or disapprove every regulatory action. That is a straw man. I expect them to write clear laws that state what agencies can do, what they cannot do, and how they should do it.
The case before the court is a good example of how the opaque and unaccountable nature of a federal agency allows them to serve their own self-interest at the expense of the citizens they are supposed to protect. Specifically, Congress specified in law that "authorizes the government to require trained, professional observers on regulated fishing vessels". But their law did not specify who would pay for these observers. So under Chevron, the agency got to decide. And, shocker! They decided they did not have to pay for it.
This ruling stops that specific abuse, and hopefully many others. The actions of federal agencies is not generally a thing to be desired.
- jf22 2y agoOk so now let's challenge what trained means, and what professional means, and what observer means, and what regulated means, and what fishing means, and what vessels mean and so on and so forth.
- kogus 2y agoI would be surprised if courts had not already heard and decided cases on the meaning of all those terms. But if they haven’t, then sure I guess they should. But precedent means they would only have to be decided once, not repeatedly litigated over and over as you seem to suggest.
- jf22 2y ago>But precedent means they would only have to be decided once I find it interesting we are discussing a case where precedent was overturned, and you are suggesting precedent will fix something.
- crazygringo 2y ago> That is a straw man. That is a straw man. I expect them to write clear laws that state what agencies can do, what they cannot do, and how they should do it. But laws can't do that in infinite detail. It's literally impossible. So it's not a straw man at all -- that was my point. At some point, regulatory agencies, like anything in the executive branch, have to decide for themselves how to get their job done. Because they have to do that a million times every day. If Congress didn't specify who will pay for the observers, it makes much more sense to leave it up to the agency than to the courts, except in cases of obvious abuse, corruption, etc. -- which this does not appear to be. I agree it sucks that the fishing vessels have to pay for the observers, but it seems obvious to me that the body to fix that is Congress. If the fishing industry can't get the agency to change it, then they should be contacting their Congressional representatives to change it. And Congress either will or won't, but that's literally who is in charge of this. It seems like a strange issue for the courts to get involved with, because there's no conflict with other laws or with the constitution.
- kogus 2y agoClearly it is not impossible for federal agencies to function without the Chevron ruling. How do you think they functioned before 1984?