> Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies thi

> Congress can actually legislate the right of agencies to interpret the gaps in the laws back into effect - by passing a law that explicitly gives agencies this power. What would such a law look like? Let's pretend we're in congress and want to pass a law limiting pollution in lakes and rivers. One option would be to have a bunch of experts tell us what we should explicitly ban and write those into the law. This option would mean we need to revisit the law every few years as the science changes and new harmful chemicals are developed or identified. If instead we want the agency to be able to adapt to new situations, how do we word it in a way that won't be overturned? Congress is in charge of legislating. When does writing rules for what is and isn't pollution cross the line to legislating? Can congress turn any of that power over to executive branch agencies without a separation of powers argument coming up? I have some views on this supreme court and believe they're driven by ideology and not a consistent legal framework. Even if you believe they are completely impartial how would you protect these laws against a future court that may not be?