3 ms·

The term “unfair” is extremely vague, and now (as it probably should be, IMO), laws are interpreted by the judiciary. If Congress wants a specific practice bann

by lumb63 2y ago

The term “unfair” is extremely vague, and now (as it probably should be, IMO), laws are interpreted by the judiciary. If Congress wants a specific practice banned, then they can make a law to do so, rather than allowing unelected career bureaucrats to interpret the law as they see fit.

Hnrobert42 2y ago
It seems you are using the term career bureaucrat as a pejorative. Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians. In any event, large decisions like this are made by political appointees appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. With Chevron overturned, we are now allowing unelected career judges interpreting policy however they see fit. If we were still in a world where precedent mattered and judges set their personal beliefs about policy aside and instead neutrally interpreted conformance with the law, sure. But as we now are packing the judiciary with partisans, it seems we've just substitutef one bad for another.
- throwup238 2y ago
  Unelected career justices that make really dumb mistakes when it comes to basic facts: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme-court-corrects-epa-opinion-after-gorsuch-confuses-laughing-gas-with-air-pollutant/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme...
- flanked-evergl 2y ago
  > Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians. This is not relevant to their right to legislate or assume duties that the constitution has delegated to congress.
  - consteval 2y ago
    It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. That seems fairly obvious to me but I suppose some segments of the political spectrum advocate blind rule making. > delegated to congress Right, and Congress has made that law, and that law says it's delegated to the FTC. What, Congress is simultaneously expected to make every single rule ever but they don't even have the rule making power to... delegate? That's too far? Seems absurd to me, almost intentionally insane with the end-goal of kneecapping rule making as a whole.
    - flanked-evergl 2y ago
      > It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. No. In a democratic republic, you require the consent of the governed to make rules, not expertise.
      - nativeit 2y ago
        I suppose it’s a good thing we elected the person who appointed the heads of federal agencies. You’re moving the goal posts.
        flanked-evergl 2y ago
        The executive has no authority to legislate.
- lumb63 2y ago
  I don’t mean it as a pejorative - I agree that these folks are (often) experts in the area they’re working in. I mean only that the creation of laws does not belong to the bureaucracy, nor the interpretation of laws. Bureaucrats are also not as accountable to the voter (how many execute branch employees have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate?) as the legislature. I think that overturning Chevron should light a fire under the collective behinds of both parties in Congress to write more specific laws that legislate precisely. I am sure it will be mayhem for a while, unfortunately, as decades of laws will be interpreted by the courts for the first time, but in the end it should result in a structure that I believe conforms better to the intended structure (legislators legislate laws which are executed by the executive branch and whether or not those laws are upheld is judged by the judiciary).
tzs 2y ago
> If Congress wants a specific practice banned, then they can make a law to do so, rather than allowing unelected career bureaucrats to interpret the law as they see fit. As opposed to unelected judges who, unlike the bureaucrats, have lifetime appointments, almost no political oversight, and are very difficult to remove. The heads of federal agencies are appointed by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate and serve limited terms.
- kjksf 2y ago
  Well, yes, because separation of powers. Congress makes the laws. Government (bureaucrats) enforces the law. Judges decide if government enforces the law correctly. The important part is not how bureaucrats or judges get their job but that bureaucrats were de facto creating laws exceeding their authority. Because the authority to create laws belongs to congress. It's not a perfect system but it would be even worse without separation of powers.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Congress already made the law. The law says "these guys make the rules". To me, that counts. The issue is that congress are not experts. They also move really, really slow. I don't expect my congressmen to know if Red 40 is safe to consume, how much can be consumed, if it should be reported as an ingredient, etc. There's thousands of ingredients in food, I imagine. If that was written into law the law would be very long, no? And then wouldn't it go out of date remarkably quickly? Hence, we have the FDA. They know about Red 40 and also medication. What level of specificity do we actually need here? Does Congress need to list out, specifically, what molecular compounds are and are not allowed? That seems absolutely absurd to me. It seems to me that once we get to the FTC or <insert any federal agency you personally disagree with>, suddenly the rules change and congress does need to be absurdly specific. Funny how that works.
    - ohashi 2y ago
      It's by design, they don't want any regulation. They want government to not work. They are doing their best to make both a reality, at the expense of the average person.

by lumb63 2y ago

Hnrobert42 2y ago

It seems you are using the term career bureaucrat as a pejorative. Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians. In any event, large decisions like this are made by political appointees appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. With Chevron overturned, we are now allowing unelected career judges interpreting policy however they see fit. If we were still in a world where precedent mattered and judges set their personal beliefs about policy aside and instead neutrally interpreted conformance with the law, sure. But as we now are packing the judiciary with partisans, it seems we've just substitutef one bad for another.

throwup238 2y ago
Unelected career justices that make really dumb mistakes when it comes to basic facts: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme-court-corrects-epa-opinion-after-gorsuch-confuses-laughing-gas-with-air-pollutant/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme...
flanked-evergl 2y ago
> Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians. This is not relevant to their right to legislate or assume duties that the constitution has delegated to congress.
- consteval 2y ago
  It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. That seems fairly obvious to me but I suppose some segments of the political spectrum advocate blind rule making. > delegated to congress Right, and Congress has made that law, and that law says it's delegated to the FTC. What, Congress is simultaneously expected to make every single rule ever but they don't even have the rule making power to... delegate? That's too far? Seems absurd to me, almost intentionally insane with the end-goal of kneecapping rule making as a whole.
  - flanked-evergl 2y ago
    > It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. No. In a democratic republic, you require the consent of the governed to make rules, not expertise.
    - nativeit 2y ago
      I suppose it’s a good thing we elected the person who appointed the heads of federal agencies. You’re moving the goal posts.
      - flanked-evergl 2y ago
        The executive has no authority to legislate.
lumb63 2y ago
I don’t mean it as a pejorative - I agree that these folks are (often) experts in the area they’re working in. I mean only that the creation of laws does not belong to the bureaucracy, nor the interpretation of laws. Bureaucrats are also not as accountable to the voter (how many execute branch employees have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate?) as the legislature. I think that overturning Chevron should light a fire under the collective behinds of both parties in Congress to write more specific laws that legislate precisely. I am sure it will be mayhem for a while, unfortunately, as decades of laws will be interpreted by the courts for the first time, but in the end it should result in a structure that I believe conforms better to the intended structure (legislators legislate laws which are executed by the executive branch and whether or not those laws are upheld is judged by the judiciary).

tzs 2y ago

> If Congress wants a specific practice banned, then they can make a law to do so, rather than allowing unelected career bureaucrats to interpret the law as they see fit. As opposed to unelected judges who, unlike the bureaucrats, have lifetime appointments, almost no political oversight, and are very difficult to remove. The heads of federal agencies are appointed by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate and serve limited terms.

kjksf 2y ago
Well, yes, because separation of powers. Congress makes the laws. Government (bureaucrats) enforces the law. Judges decide if government enforces the law correctly. The important part is not how bureaucrats or judges get their job but that bureaucrats were de facto creating laws exceeding their authority. Because the authority to create laws belongs to congress. It's not a perfect system but it would be even worse without separation of powers.
- consteval 2y ago
  Congress already made the law. The law says "these guys make the rules". To me, that counts. The issue is that congress are not experts. They also move really, really slow. I don't expect my congressmen to know if Red 40 is safe to consume, how much can be consumed, if it should be reported as an ingredient, etc. There's thousands of ingredients in food, I imagine. If that was written into law the law would be very long, no? And then wouldn't it go out of date remarkably quickly? Hence, we have the FDA. They know about Red 40 and also medication. What level of specificity do we actually need here? Does Congress need to list out, specifically, what molecular compounds are and are not allowed? That seems absolutely absurd to me. It seems to me that once we get to the FTC or <insert any federal agency you personally disagree with>, suddenly the rules change and congress does need to be absurdly specific. Funny how that works.
  - ohashi 2y ago
    It's by design, they don't want any regulation. They want government to not work. They are doing their best to make both a reality, at the expense of the average person.