3 ms·
I don't see how the court's interpretation provides more certainty than the executive branch's (via the FCC); it's one interpretation or another. Also, the exe
by mmooss 2y ago
I don't see how the court's interpretation provides more certainty than the executive branch's (via the FCC); it's one interpretation or another.
Also, the executive branch has domain experts who understand telecommunications and long experience develping and implementing policy; the court is an outsider trying to figure it out. I'd rather have the experts doing the work.
The courts have been especially unpredictable recently, widely perceived to act on politics rather than the law. The Supreme Court seems to fabricate law on a regular basis. In this case, the executive has virtually unlimited power - beyond legal restraint or criminal sanction - in its 'core functions', but regulating powerful GOP constituents is a step too far.
- tptacek 2y agoI think you get more certainty from the court interpretation because it's final. The executive branch can't simply overrule it and say "well, we disagree, the FCC rules stand".
- mmooss 2y agoGood point. When you put it that way, perhaps the reduced democratic power over the situation is a drawback. Also, to clarify (and as I'm sure you know), the executive can't arbitrarily change regulatory rules. A whole process is required and non-arbitrariness is a rule (of courts or the law).
- tptacek 2y agoThis is strictly increased democratic power over the situation.
- mmooss 2y agoWhat do you mean? The judicial branch is much less democratic than the executive branch. If you refer to the 'regulation is by unelected bureaucrats' argument, it's certainly widely stated but it's BS: With only ~540 elected people in Washington, almost every decision and act by people who weren't elected. Government would immediately cease to function if those 540 had to do everything, and democracy would be impossible. Democracy is people delegated specific powers by elected officials, and that includes regulators. The democratic credentials of courts and executive branch regulators are an interesting comparison: Both have their members appointed by the executive and confirmed by the legislature. Elected officials insulate both from the elected officials' own interference. The main difference is how thick that insulation is: Executive branch regulators are intended to change authority with each president and to generally follow the president's preferences to some degree, within the law and in service to the American people (that is, they serve the people and not the president). The regulators are insulated by laws which theoretically could change any day, but generally don't. Judicial branch appointees, the judges, are for life, are expected to act completely independently of the president who appointed them, and they are insulated by the Constitution, which is much harder to change.
- tptacek 2y agoThe outcome of this case pushes power away from the executive, and towards the legislature.
- wtallis 2y agoIt doesn't change the legislature's power; they were and still are free to write detailed regulations into law. It just shifted the power in cases of less-specific regulations away from the executive and to the courts. The courts are every bit as capable as the executive of making tortured interpretations of law, and to some extent are required to do so by stare decisis.
- tptacek 2y agoAllowing the executive branch to make new laws does, in fact, take power from the legislative branch!
- mmooss 2y agoIs the legislature more democratic than the executive? Also, what does that mean in reality? The 538 elected legislators can't regulate everything (or anything), of course. Whatever they do, it will require delegating power, as I said, to functionaries. And in any case, implementing laws and policy is an executive branch function - for the legislature to do it (beyond writing law) would be a violation of separation of powers.