3 ms·
Yes. That is their job, and they've done it. If they are not happy with how an agency is acting - they have the clear and obvious ability to amend the laws th
by horsawlarway 2y ago
Yes. That is their job, and they've done it.
If they are not happy with how an agency is acting - they have the clear and obvious ability to amend the laws that govern that agency.
Their failure to do so is not arbitrary - it is agreement and faith in the agency they have empowered to act on their behalf.
The courts are now compelling action. Why?
If I am satisfied with how my employees are behaving, I don't chastise them or correct them over minor ambiguities - I leave them alone to continue behaving in a manner I approve of. If I am unsatisfied - I take action to correct the reason I am unsatisfied.
The courts seem to have turned this common sense on its head.
- 23B1 2y agoBecause the courts merely interpret and reinforce the laws – as written by the people's representatives, not by an unelected official. The lawmaking body of the land is congress, and they are comprised of a fair representation of the people. That is by design.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago> If they are not happy with how an agency is acting - they have the clear and obvious ability to amend the laws that govern that agency. Changing the law requires a majority in the House and Senate and either a veto-proof majority or the signature of the President. It's not supposed to require only the President. But now you have a problem. What happens if the law that actually passed is ambiguous? Who resolves the ambiguity? The courts get the first pass. Then if there is consensus they got it wrong, Congress can change the law. If there isn't consensus they got it wrong then the elected branches are deadlocked and the courts act as the tiebreaker until they reach consensus. Making the President the tiebreaker is giving way too much power to one person.