651–660 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We disagree. I prefer an effective administration of government.
What's your definition of effective and how are you evaluating if the administrative government is meeting your definition?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
except agencies need to be able to work on timelines faster than once a decade
[flagged]
Your problem is the VASTLY more informed elites, who spend their time funding teams and campaigns. Teams who get into the details, who plan the messaging, do the lobbying, and provide the scripts that are repeated to those who listen.
It’s the guy who is a middle manager at a campaign, the lawyers figuring out which courts need to be influenced, the wording of which law to be switched, the people who map out each agency org chart and read the by laws to figure out how to dismantle the agency.
It’s those doctors, those lawyers, those analysts, those consultants and experts who are doing the work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. > So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This honestly sounds perfect. If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.
Agreed. If Congress or Executive agencies don't want the judiciary interpreting the laws in various ways they should write laws with no room for interpretation. The couts giving/forcing (back) power to the legislature where laws are supposed to be written, deliberated, and passed is a very good thing.
I think what you’re saying is the equivalent of “just write software without bugs and everything will be fine”
Yeah sure… but easier said than done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. > So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This honestly sounds perfect. If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.
Agreed. If Congress or Executive agencies don't want the judiciary interpreting the laws in various ways they should write laws with no room for interpretation. The couts giving/forcing (back) power to the legislature where laws are supposed to be written, deliberated, and passed is a very good thing.
I'm impressed that they can so easily dispose of 40 years of law making by Congress that assumed that agencies would interpret the statutes and make rules for regulating their area of authority. Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. Awesome logic work, but terrible legal thin…
I'm thankful. Congress skirted their duties for 40 years. This legislative / executive codependency then created a tightly connected and interdependent governance system, outside the purview of the judicial 'checks and balances .' This is why things like warrantless mass tapping and the Patriot Act became 'good law.' We are unwinding decades of bad governance. This is a joyous occasion, along with the ACJ decision fr…
If Congress seeks to regulate air, water, land, and space pollution, from American companies, they should appoint industry experts who intend to leave public sector jobs for lucrative private sector jobs by going to work for the companies the laws need to regulate. It’s worked great for politicians who become lobbyists or prosecutors who go work for big law.
It’ll work great here too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. This is the goal. Want to pollute? You will soon when the EPA has no teeth.
This could go the other way. All agencies answer to the President. The President could just scrap all regulations or just not enforce them.
To which I raise you the 2008 crisis and the defanging of the SEC. Since it looks like people want to neuter weather agencies, I believe its going to be a fascinating couple of years.
I'm impressed that they can so easily dispose of 40 years of law making by Congress that assumed that agencies would interpret the statutes and make rules for regulating their area of authority. Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide. So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate. Awesome logic work, but terrible legal thin…
I'm thankful. Congress skirted their duties for 40 years. This legislative / executive codependency then created a tightly connected and interdependent governance system, outside the purview of the judicial 'checks and balances .' This is why things like warrantless mass tapping and the Patriot Act became 'good law.' We are unwinding decades of bad governance. This is a joyous occasion, along with the ACJ decision fr…