3 ms·

>> Judges are still allowed to defer to experts > Then why is congress be denied the same latitude (via agencies)? Come on, that's obviously false. Even in an

by tivert 2y ago

>> Judges are still allowed to defer to experts > Then why is congress be denied the same latitude (via agencies)? Come on, that's obviously false. Even in an alternative world where agency rule-making was totally abolished, and everything has to be enacted directly through legislation, Congress could still defer to experts to draft that legislation. Also the courts themselves are supposed to be the experts at interpreting legislation. In our system of government, it's their job to have the final say about that. Let me put it another way: do you think it would be a good idea for judges to be required to defer to prosecutors (also in the executive branch) on the interpretation of criminal law? (e.g. "Prosecutor: Your honor, the defendant is guilty because I say the law says he is. Judge: OK, your call. How long should we lock him up for?")

sangnoir 2y ago
> Even in an alternative world where agency rule-making was totally abolished, and everything has to be enacted directly through legislation, Congress could still defer to experts to draft that legislation. What are the odds that the experts a biased towards special interests? How many laws do you suppose congress can write in one session? How many laws will now need to be written to match the average number rules developed by all agencies per year over the past 40 years since Chevron? In practice, this will result in gigantic acts that members of congress can't read before voting, amd increase the likelihood of loopholes. Which is intentional, IMO. Frankly, when the judges and politicians who believe there are too many rules/too much government and decry government dysfunction suggest the answer is more rules or better laws (completely disregarding self-professed dysfunction), I won't take their words at face value, the sudden confidence in government competence and efficiency is likely tactical in pursuit of "dismantling the administrative state" (an actual stated goal).

by tivert 2y ago

sangnoir 2y ago

> Even in an alternative world where agency rule-making was totally abolished, and everything has to be enacted directly through legislation, Congress could still defer to experts to draft that legislation. What are the odds that the experts a biased towards special interests? How many laws do you suppose congress can write in one session? How many laws will now need to be written to match the average number rules developed by all agencies per year over the past 40 years since Chevron? In practice, this will result in gigantic acts that members of congress can't read before voting, amd increase the likelihood of loopholes. Which is intentional, IMO. Frankly, when the judges and politicians who believe there are too many rules/too much government and decry government dysfunction suggest the answer is more rules or better laws (completely disregarding self-professed dysfunction), I won't take their words at face value, the sudden confidence in government competence and efficiency is likely tactical in pursuit of "dismantling the administrative state" (an actual stated goal).