4 ms·

For an unelected panel of judges to come in, above the agencies, and tell them how the president is allowed to enforce laws is a perversion of the constitutiona

by cm2187 2y ago

For an unelected panel of judges to come in, above the agencies, and tell them how the president is allowed to enforce laws is a perversion of the constitutional order and separation of powers—and a repudiation of democracy itself. It's a curious take. My understanding is that it is curbing the ability of the executive to issue laws (by calling them regulations), ie congress is not allowed constitutionally to delegate its law issuing powers away. So the power for the executive to issue new laws has to be extremely limited. State agencies officials are as unelected as judges. Congress cannot vote that an agency can issue any rule it wants for the environment for instance. I know it is frustrating to have to go through congress to make changes but that's the very definition of democracy, the progressive accumulation of power in the hands of the executive is not.

nathanaldensr 2y ago
[flagged]
- chipdart 2y ago
  > Let's just call this article what it is: pure leftist propaganda. This is a stupid take. Separation of powers is a cornerstone of the system of checks and balances. The Legislative Branch exercises congressional power, the Executive Branch exercises executive power, and the Judicial Branch exercises judicial review. This decision means that the judicial branch, on top of exercising judicial review, encroaches on the role of the Executive Branch by overriding how it exercises executive power. This is a blatant power grab, regardless of where your political compass points to. For example, taken from the article: > So, for instance, if Congress passes a Clean Air Act (which it did in in 1963) and the president creates an executive agency to enforce it (which President Richard Nixon did in 1970), then it’s really not up to the Supreme Court to say, “Well, actually, ‘clean air’ doesn’t mean what the EPA thinks it means.” If you want another example, imagine a Supreme Court decision that determines that owning a gun is illegal because possessing one infringes on some other constitutional right.
kllrnohj 2y ago
That's a misunderstanding of Chevron. Chevron said that if an agencies interpretation of the law was reasonable, it was deferred to. It did not let agencies do whatever they fuck they wanted unchecked. What the SC just said is in the case of ambiguity, it's a coinflip how it'll go based on the whims of the court you land in (or more accurately, which one you bribe) It's neither reasonable nor feasible for Congress to make fully thorough and ambitious-free laws for regulators to enforce. That line of argument is in bad faith, there's no "returning authority to Congress" here.
- salawat 2y ago
  All the Supreme Court has said is that Courts must wrangle with the question themselves instead of auto-deferring. If a case is important enough, the State can escalate what they consider a bad call to the Supreme Court for clarity. A judge who habitually makes bad calls and clutters up the docket is going to get a lot of attention, real quick.
  - kllrnohj 2y ago
    Which is a power grab by the courts. Instead of deciding if the agencies interpretation was reasonable, they now also decide if they like the decision in the first place. More power to the court == power grab, this is pretty straightforward. Especially when combined with the decision that judges can be legally bribed.
    - temporarely 2y ago
      The core issue is that the Masonic trilateral structure - legislative, judiciary, & executive - is showing its age. The problem is fundamentally structural. We have generally unqualified representatives drafting ambiguous regulatory laws that then need to be interpreted by some entity, whether the courts (whose expertise is law) or the agencies (whose expertise is not law). There are two related difficult problems in governance models: entrenched bureaucracies and security services. Specialized tasks that require professionals who can naturally form a political block and subsequently political will and clout. However their responsible roles are by definition 'professional'. I think we need to start thinking of a more modern political structure, specially in light of communication and information technology available. This debate over who is overreaching and who gets to get bribed or what ideological faction will get to interpret is a futile endeavor. The core issue is 'legal and political consensus that is informed by expert insights'. As an example (to get you thinking) more 'real-time' engagements between different branches of the system could address all of the issues that SC or its decision opponents are arguing about.

by cm2187 2y ago

nathanaldensr 2y ago

[flagged]

chipdart 2y ago
> Let's just call this article what it is: pure leftist propaganda. This is a stupid take. Separation of powers is a cornerstone of the system of checks and balances. The Legislative Branch exercises congressional power, the Executive Branch exercises executive power, and the Judicial Branch exercises judicial review. This decision means that the judicial branch, on top of exercising judicial review, encroaches on the role of the Executive Branch by overriding how it exercises executive power. This is a blatant power grab, regardless of where your political compass points to. For example, taken from the article: > So, for instance, if Congress passes a Clean Air Act (which it did in in 1963) and the president creates an executive agency to enforce it (which President Richard Nixon did in 1970), then it’s really not up to the Supreme Court to say, “Well, actually, ‘clean air’ doesn’t mean what the EPA thinks it means.” If you want another example, imagine a Supreme Court decision that determines that owning a gun is illegal because possessing one infringes on some other constitutional right.

kllrnohj 2y ago

That's a misunderstanding of Chevron. Chevron said that if an agencies interpretation of the law was reasonable, it was deferred to. It did not let agencies do whatever they fuck they wanted unchecked. What the SC just said is in the case of ambiguity, it's a coinflip how it'll go based on the whims of the court you land in (or more accurately, which one you bribe) It's neither reasonable nor feasible for Congress to make fully thorough and ambitious-free laws for regulators to enforce. That line of argument is in bad faith, there's no "returning authority to Congress" here.

salawat 2y ago
All the Supreme Court has said is that Courts must wrangle with the question themselves instead of auto-deferring. If a case is important enough, the State can escalate what they consider a bad call to the Supreme Court for clarity. A judge who habitually makes bad calls and clutters up the docket is going to get a lot of attention, real quick.
- kllrnohj 2y ago
  Which is a power grab by the courts. Instead of deciding if the agencies interpretation was reasonable, they now also decide if they like the decision in the first place. More power to the court == power grab, this is pretty straightforward. Especially when combined with the decision that judges can be legally bribed.
  - temporarely 2y ago
    The core issue is that the Masonic trilateral structure - legislative, judiciary, & executive - is showing its age. The problem is fundamentally structural. We have generally unqualified representatives drafting ambiguous regulatory laws that then need to be interpreted by some entity, whether the courts (whose expertise is law) or the agencies (whose expertise is not law). There are two related difficult problems in governance models: entrenched bureaucracies and security services. Specialized tasks that require professionals who can naturally form a political block and subsequently political will and clout. However their responsible roles are by definition 'professional'. I think we need to start thinking of a more modern political structure, specially in light of communication and information technology available. This debate over who is overreaching and who gets to get bribed or what ideological faction will get to interpret is a futile endeavor. The core issue is 'legal and political consensus that is informed by expert insights'. As an example (to get you thinking) more 'real-time' engagements between different branches of the system could address all of the issues that SC or its decision opponents are arguing about.