5 ms·
This is a refreshing perspective, I'm used to laws in my own country having explicit provisions allowing delegated acts to be adopted, so the reactions to this
by TazeTSchnitzel 2y ago
This is a refreshing perspective, I'm used to laws in my own country having explicit provisions allowing delegated acts to be adopted, so the reactions to this decision had made me wonder if the US somehow didn't have that. But I guess it does, and the problem is Congress is lazy?
- enragedcacti 2y agoThe US government has a lot of intentional friction built into the system and has had more added over time (e.g. the current iteration of the filibuster). Passing laws is harder and takes much longer than most democracies so applying existing laws to new or unexpected situations is a more important and more common issue. Most of those structural hurdles won't change so the net effect is that instead of the elected administration doing minimal interpretation with judicial checks it will be the unelected and unaccountable judges doing it, usually with years of litigation and potentially years of delay added to any controversial regulation. All of that made worse by the ability to shop for friendly judges (see the absurd mifeprestone case). We do have some broad limits to delegation and at least one member of the current court (Thomas) has expressed a desire to limit delegation further.
- hobs 2y agoCongress wants to pretend the other guy is the problem, gerrymandered their own districts and really only care about re-elected. Have a for life appointee in the courts do all the work for them is ideal cover for their more extreme ideals.
- votepaunchy 2y agoCongressional districts are drawn by each state, not Congress itself.
- hobs 2y agoYes, which are all controlled by the parties who nominate and elect these folks.