During oral arguments, the court’s conservative majority questioned a legal doctrine that gives agencies latitude to craft regulations.
Conservative justices on the Supreme Court on Wednesday pressed the Biden administration on whether ambiguous laws passed by Congress should be interpreted by judges, rather than by federal bureaucrats.
The high court’s eventual ruling could hand courts — including the Supreme Court itself — more power to strike down regulations on health care, the environment, immigration and virtually all other policy areas that are administered by federal agencies. That would strip power from the executive branch and make it harder for Joe Biden and future presidents to defend their regulatory agendas against legal challenges.
“It’s the role of the judiciary historically under the Constitution to police the line between the legislature and the executive to make sure that the executive is not operating as a king,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a critic of the so-called Chevron doctrine that is under fire.
Abolish SCOTUS.
“It’s the role of the judiciary historically under the Constitution to police the line between the legislature and the executive to make sure that the executive is not operating as a king,”
That’s a wild perspective of what a court does and exists for. Sounds like someone needs another court for when this one starts breaking the law and trying to use its position for authority.
And yet it’s the sort of perspective I would expect from a man who took beer up the ass in college to be part of the gang.
Is this not why we elect Congress, to pass the laws under which we live? We did not elect bureaucrats. We elect legislators.
It’s why we have three branches of government.
When was the last time we passed legislation of note? 2017? Before that? Obamacare?
We elected a lot of people who are happy to just let the federal government do nothing and collect a paycheck.
I 100% agree, but that does not mean that unelected bureaucrats get to take up that responsibility. The responsibility of voters is to make sure their elected officials are doing their job, and if not then to find those who will.
Considering how long, and how political, ever decision going through congress gets… you really want every single action of the government to be based on the constant bickering of politicians?
The reason we have these federal agencies is so that decisions can be made without political motivation.
Yes. That’s why our system is government is designed the way it is.
Why should anyone be held accountable for the decisions of those they did not ask to govern them?
Our Republic was designed to give everyone a voice. When those who are unaccountable to the electorate govern something is very wrong.
Why should anyone be held accountable for the decisions of those they did not ask to govern them?
Because those decisions affect those they don’t govern, too.
When those who are unaccountable to the electorate govern something is very wrong.
Are you kidding? Businesses do more governing in every way at local and arguably states levels than any other entity, and they are the most unaccountable institution in America. We have several unaccountable businessmen trying to run for president, the most unaccountable people on the planet.
Federal agencies are answerable to the executive branch, which is directly accountable to the people. And they jump through a lot of hoops to ensure they do actually remain accountable. I mean, you can comment on proposed regulatory changes here, at Regulations.gov.
Good, smaller federal government leads to good things for the rest of us.
Like PFAS enhanced water! And mystery bonuses in our pharmaceuticals!
Don’t forget unregulated child labor!
The environment in your state effects the environment in mine. Go fuck yourself with that simple minded, selfish cop out.
Grow up and accept the fact that your actions have consequences that go further than your front door.
This is what the lack of regulations leads to- https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/cuyahoga-river-caught-fire-least-dozen-times-no-one-cared-until-1969-180972444/
Stfu and get back to the salt mine.
Good, smaller federal government
This isn’t about the size of government, it’s about who rules- and whether or not they answer to the public. The buzzword-talk you hear about ‘burdensome regulations’ revolves around pretending that if you get rid of regulatory agencies that there will be no regulation in the spheres they regulate- but that’s not how that works. Taking away the authority of a regulatory agency really means handing regulatory authority back into private hands, the way it was before regulators answering to the public were authorized.
So, what happens when you take away the SEC’s power to regulate banks, or the EPA’s power to regulate environmental matters? Power to regulate banking reverts back to trade associations made up of… banks, and the people who will be in charge of protecting the environment will be the people profiting by polluting it. https://prospect.org/economy/rise-of-neo-feudalism/
Righteous view point. Ignore the rude comments from those lacking in vocabulary and tact. They aren’t winning anyone over. The government should be of sufficient size and no larger. It is an entity that produces nothing of economic value and is inefficient with resources (our tax dollars). Should it be a revolving door from the heads of the FDA to ludicrous salary jobs at big pharma? The same goes for Ag, EPA, FBI, FCC, SEC, etc. Hell the board and shareholders of our central bank (The Fed) ARE the big banks. I’m sure those seeking high ranking government positions do it for altruistic reasons. Sheeple gonna sheeple.
