2 ms·
That was addressed earlier in the conversation, multiple times.
by mmooss 2y ago
That was addressed earlier in the conversation, multiple times.
- tptacek 2y agoI don't know if it was "addressed", but it couldn't have been "rebutted", because this is basically axiomatic. Loper doesn't overturn specific delegations of power to regulators; doing so would basically neuter the entire executive branch. What it says is that when there's ambiguity about a statute --- such as when a telecommunications bill that barely mentions the Internet and appears to view it in approximately the same light as TMBG's "Dial-a-Song" is used as the basis for sweeping Internet regulation --- the courts are no longer required to take the regulator's word for it. There's nothing wrong with delegations of power. They just need to be specific; they should represent a legibly expressed intent of the democratically elected legislative branch, which is the branch that the framers created specifically to craft legislation.
- mmooss 2y ago> this is basically axiomatic And what I said is 'self-evident' to me! Why even bother telling it to anyone else?