Posted on 02/02/2017 11:31:07 AM PST by Kaslin
The shorthand description of Neil Gorsuch is that he's a younger version of the man he's likely to replace on the Supreme Court -- Justice Antonin Scalia. Therefore, his nomination is seen by many as merely restoring the balance that existed on the Court for most of the past decade -- 4 conservative justices, 4 liberal justices, and Justice Kennedy as a key swing vote.
The idea that Gorsuch is a young Scalia is as accurate as such shorthand comments can be, but SCOTUS blog reports that there is one significant exception. Last year, "Gorsuch criticized a doctrine of administrative law (called Chevron deference) that Scalia had long defended." That won't make headlines the way that other hot button issues do, but it's a difference that could bring about a huge and positive change to the way the federal government works.
To understand why, a little background is required.
Over the past four decades, as American society has been decentralizing, American politics has been heading in the opposite direction. Political elites have centralized more and more power in a distant bureaucracy set up to rule without interference from voters. By placing faith in government and bureaucrats -- rather than everyday Americans and community organizations -- the regulatory state is fundamentally a threat to American democracy and self-governance.
The rise of the regulatory state "represents perhaps the single greatest change in our system of government since the founding," according to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. "Our carefully constructed system of checks and balances is being negated by the rise of a fourth branch, an administrative state of sprawling departments and agencies that govern with increasing autonomy and decreasing transparency."
Alarmingly, Turley notes, "Citizens today are ten times more likely to be the subject of an agency court ruling than a federal court ruling."
In 2015, 224 laws were passed by Congress and 3,554 new regulations were implemented. In other words, Congress had nothing to do with 94 percent of all new federal laws. Regulators now have a bigger impact on the daily lives of most Americans than Congress, the president, or the nation's courts.
The Supreme Court has consistently aided this sprint to impose top-down bureaucratic control. In 1984, the Honorables ruled that agency decisions should be given great deference by the courts. Later, the Court ruled that agencies should even receive deference in terms of deciding their own jurisdiction. That latter ruling prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to write a strong dissent highlighting significant concerns: "It would be a bit much to describe the result as 'the very definition of tyranny,' but the danger posed by the growing power of the administrative state cannot be dismissed."
The addition of Neil Gorsuch to the Court will help Roberts address that very real danger. The likely next Supreme Court Justice sees this as a fundamental problem. He has written that permitting "executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power [is] more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution."
Gorsuch clearly believes that bureaucrats should be subject to Constitutional checks and balances. If he can help the Court provide such accountability, the next Justice will play a great role in restoring America's commitment to democracy and self-governance.
Wow - this pick keeps looking better & better.
I agree with this description and characterization of the Regulatory Branch. We can hope this is the beginning of the end of its rise, but keep in mind that the rise of the regulatory branch has served the (personal) interests of the legislators of both parties, who are increasingly hesitant to cast votes on anything.
Or cast votes just to find out whats in it.
With Øcare and other bills, they now write the laws in such a way as to give deference after the fact to regulatory agencies. I recall hearing that the regulatory fallout of Øcare was double the already voluminous bill.
Either way, it's an abdication of their duty under the US Constitution and they do it because they can shelter themselves at re-election time and because we've let them get away with it.
If the opportunity arises for Trump to appoint two more Gorsuches to the Court then we may be, if not out of the woods, at least getting the underbrush cleared away. The problem is that USSC Justices from the right often exhibit a tendency to “grow” in office, as the left likes to put it. They become enamored of the idea that they can make a significant difference and get press adulation at the same time. It doesn’t really matter what sort of difference they make, just so it is celebrated. The most infamous example was Earl Warren. Roberts has shown that tendency and Kennedy came to the Bench with that attitude. We do not have a reliable Court until Kennedy and Roberts are gone or offset.
Congress is no longer a functioning legislature but rather a committee that exists to put a procedural gloss on the Administrative Totalistic structure of the State.
Gorsuch
Better than Scalia?
Interesting...
I claim that the current administrative state is unconstitutional, for ALL legislative authority is vested by the Constitution in the Congress. The liberals believed that “complicated things” couldn’t be left to Congress and the people, and so they conned our forefathers into the administrative process.
To pass a law under the Constitution, both House and Senate pass the same identical bill, and the president signs it.
Today, agencies make rules, publish them, and it takes Congress passing a law and the President signing it to remove the rule. This is the reverse of the Constitution.
If you are going to keep it, the process should be changed to: agencies make proposed rules, House and Senate must concur, and then President signs it.
The rats really screwed up. After assassinating Scalia, they assumed Obama would replace him. Oops.
An unelected and unacountable bureaucracy writing law is one of the primary features of a dictatorship. If another revolution becomes necessary, the primary target must be the unaccountable bureaucrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.