3 ms·

We can though. That was the whole point of executive agencies. To not require deadlock as a service.

Spivak 2y ago
It's why I'm frustrated as the originalist/textualist direction of the courts where it's clear they want to massively reduce the ability of congress to delegate their authority. Because federal agencies didn't come into existence out of nowherere, they were created to solve specific problems with congress -- notably the speed of rulemaking and the lack of specific industry expertise. I genuinely don't know what they expect to happen when doing away with it and replacing it with nothing. Letting the agencies go about their business and if they do something congress really doesn't like they have the ability to intervene is good system of agility and accountability. Especially because states, red and blue alike, unburdened by the constitution in the same way also use this model.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  > I genuinely don't know what they expect to happen when doing away with it and replacing it with nothing. A golden age of value transfer to shareholders, unencumbered by communist concepts like "environmental protection" and "workplace safety". Or at least that's what will happen for a while, until something happens, like some guy who's lost everything to his kid getting (and dying from) cancer - caused by drinking polluted water - realizing there's no real legal recourse anymore and deciding to take matters into his own hands. But that's a simple possibility to the c-suite, not a certainty, and even if it were a certainty, it's not known if it's scheduled in the next fiscal quarter. So dump the chemicals in the waterway and get back to work. Literally every concern can be pushed out into the unknown future, while every benefit can be quantified and added to the earnings call as a talking point. EDIT: You can downvote this all you want, but all of these agencies, rules, etc. are a part of a system meant to prevent and adjudicate issues that exist in society. If you remove that system, humans will come up with their own.
- rangestransform 2y ago
  If you want speed of policymaking, you can become more authoritarian a la china or have a more elitist policymaking system like some portion of european countries (see: France banning short haul flights, London congestion charge and ULEZ). I view the election of Donald trump in 2016 as a wholesale rejection of elitism in American policymaking rather than any true desire for conservative values.
  - HumblyTossed 2y ago
    > I view the election of Donald trump in 2016 as a wholesale rejection of elitism in American policymaking rather than any true desire for conservative values. Then he truly did con the American people.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    * The short haul flight ban is great, and widely supported. You don't need those flights anyway because the rail network is cheaper and better. Plus the ban has so many exceptions it's likely to not actually impede you when actually needed, most people wish it was stronger. * The ban was passed by the Assemblée Nationale which is their congress. So I'm not sure what your point is, it wasn't unilateral.
  - banana_feather 2y ago
    > If you want speed of policymaking, you can become more authoritarian a la china or have a more elitist policymaking system like some portion of european countries I didn't realize the United States was an authoritarian system until just a few weeks ago. Free at last, free at last. Can you shed some light on what speeds of policymaking are definitely not authoritarian? Asking for a friend.
    - rangestransform 2y ago
      Having unelected, educated bureaucrats make policy like the chevron ruling permitted is definitely more elitist than having direct democracy or elected representatives make policy, which I would consider more populist. I’m not calling it bad or good, that’s just what it is, I think both elitist and populist are bad words these days

It's why I'm frustrated as the originalist/textualist direction of the courts where it's clear they want to massively reduce the ability of congress to delegate their authority. Because federal agencies didn't come into existence out of nowherere, they were created to solve specific problems with congress -- notably the speed of rulemaking and the lack of specific industry expertise. I genuinely don't know what they expect to happen when doing away with it and replacing it with nothing. Letting the agencies go about their business and if they do something congress really doesn't like they have the ability to intervene is good system of agility and accountability. Especially because states, red and blue alike, unburdened by the constitution in the same way also use this model.

lenerdenator 2y ago
> I genuinely don't know what they expect to happen when doing away with it and replacing it with nothing. A golden age of value transfer to shareholders, unencumbered by communist concepts like "environmental protection" and "workplace safety". Or at least that's what will happen for a while, until something happens, like some guy who's lost everything to his kid getting (and dying from) cancer - caused by drinking polluted water - realizing there's no real legal recourse anymore and deciding to take matters into his own hands. But that's a simple possibility to the c-suite, not a certainty, and even if it were a certainty, it's not known if it's scheduled in the next fiscal quarter. So dump the chemicals in the waterway and get back to work. Literally every concern can be pushed out into the unknown future, while every benefit can be quantified and added to the earnings call as a talking point. EDIT: You can downvote this all you want, but all of these agencies, rules, etc. are a part of a system meant to prevent and adjudicate issues that exist in society. If you remove that system, humans will come up with their own.
rangestransform 2y ago
If you want speed of policymaking, you can become more authoritarian a la china or have a more elitist policymaking system like some portion of european countries (see: France banning short haul flights, London congestion charge and ULEZ). I view the election of Donald trump in 2016 as a wholesale rejection of elitism in American policymaking rather than any true desire for conservative values.
- HumblyTossed 2y ago
  > I view the election of Donald trump in 2016 as a wholesale rejection of elitism in American policymaking rather than any true desire for conservative values. Then he truly did con the American people.
- Spivak 2y ago
  * The short haul flight ban is great, and widely supported. You don't need those flights anyway because the rail network is cheaper and better. Plus the ban has so many exceptions it's likely to not actually impede you when actually needed, most people wish it was stronger. * The ban was passed by the Assemblée Nationale which is their congress. So I'm not sure what your point is, it wasn't unilateral.
- banana_feather 2y ago
  > If you want speed of policymaking, you can become more authoritarian a la china or have a more elitist policymaking system like some portion of european countries I didn't realize the United States was an authoritarian system until just a few weeks ago. Free at last, free at last. Can you shed some light on what speeds of policymaking are definitely not authoritarian? Asking for a friend.
  - rangestransform 2y ago
    Having unelected, educated bureaucrats make policy like the chevron ruling permitted is definitely more elitist than having direct democracy or elected representatives make policy, which I would consider more populist. I’m not calling it bad or good, that’s just what it is, I think both elitist and populist are bad words these days