3 ms·

Regulatory agencies have power which they were never granted, and the supreme court correctly found that if the executive branch is not granted power to do some

Regulatory agencies have power which they were never granted, and the supreme court correctly found that if the executive branch is not granted power to do something (e.g. pass de-facto laws) they they cannot do that. This is a constitutional position, not a partisan position. If we want laws then we get congress to pass laws. This is how our system works. Congress' dysfunction is not an excuse to end-run around our system, it's a reason to fix congress.

bookaway 2y ago
Well, if one party or another thinks the way the current pieces are lying on the board are advantageous to them, I would think it's a reason for them not to fix Congress.
- infogulch 2y ago
  Both parties are disincentivized to actually fix the problem because when unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch make all the rules then nobody is actually held accountable. Then senators and congressmen from both isles get to chain themselves to the fence and viscously bark at the other side with partisan vitrol to drum up support while getting nothing done.
consteval 2y ago
> This is a constitutional position, not a partisan position Every* previous court has disagreed. This is just your opinion. Chevron has been de-facto the way things are done since the early 1900s. You can disagree with Chevron, but you'd have to be both blind and deaf to think that's not a politically motivated position. At which point, I'm wondering how Hellen Keller got on hacker news. As a side-note: the constitution is, in fact, up to interpretation. The textualist's interpretation is just one. It is not more correct and, actually, is typically obviously obtuse. I mean, it's a position based on the action of playing dumb.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
The supreme court literally deferred such duties to regulatory agencies. Congress didn't intervene with bills. That's about as tacit power as you can get. >Congress' dysfunction is not an excuse to end-run around our system Sure it is. The whole point of the judicial system is to interpret laws and make rulings based on interpretations. If congress hates that, they need to stop slapfighting. Meanwhile, I believe executive orders have risen back to 40's/50's era orders (i.e. orders during World wars). Again, Judicial and Congressional can stop it but no one does half the time. >it's a reason to fix congress. I'm open to ideas.

bookaway 2y ago

Well, if one party or another thinks the way the current pieces are lying on the board are advantageous to them, I would think it's a reason for them not to fix Congress.

infogulch 2y ago
Both parties are disincentivized to actually fix the problem because when unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch make all the rules then nobody is actually held accountable. Then senators and congressmen from both isles get to chain themselves to the fence and viscously bark at the other side with partisan vitrol to drum up support while getting nothing done.

consteval 2y ago

> This is a constitutional position, not a partisan position Every* previous court has disagreed. This is just your opinion. Chevron has been de-facto the way things are done since the early 1900s. You can disagree with Chevron, but you'd have to be both blind and deaf to think that's not a politically motivated position. At which point, I'm wondering how Hellen Keller got on hacker news. As a side-note: the constitution is, in fact, up to interpretation. The textualist's interpretation is just one. It is not more correct and, actually, is typically obviously obtuse. I mean, it's a position based on the action of playing dumb.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

The supreme court literally deferred such duties to regulatory agencies. Congress didn't intervene with bills. That's about as tacit power as you can get. >Congress' dysfunction is not an excuse to end-run around our system Sure it is. The whole point of the judicial system is to interpret laws and make rulings based on interpretations. If congress hates that, they need to stop slapfighting. Meanwhile, I believe executive orders have risen back to 40's/50's era orders (i.e. orders during World wars). Again, Judicial and Congressional can stop it but no one does half the time. >it's a reason to fix congress. I'm open to ideas.