[circlecity]

"I think that’s where Roberts was going."

Hummm, I wonder if he's thinking it may be an unlawful delegation of power.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Sane people would think exactly that.

[Usagi_yo]

That doesn’t ring like a good argument or reasoning. What they’re looking at is a mess.

1. The non-recusal of Kagan.
2. The desire to correct a perceived flaw in a poorly written law.
3. The thought that such a consideration from #2 should be based on the monetary value of the flaw
4. The fact that deferring to the administrative agency could result in a cycle of never ending re-interpretations from administration to administration.
5. The court is being asked to basicaly re-write the law everytime an appeal is heard.

The correct judgement would be maintain the status quo, Invalidate the law as constitutionally ambiguous, then to delay that invalidation and send the whole ball back to congress to solve.

If you really want a good political thriller and grab for power, Have the supreme court threaten Congress and the President with an appointment of a special ‘Master’ to resolve the issue.

[Thud]

He is. A regulation which can be completely reversed at the Executive branch's discretion is an unlawful delegation of power.

""I think that’s where Roberts was going."

Hummm, I wonder if he's thinking it may be an unlawful delegation of power.