Posted on 07/03/2024 9:23:38 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Imagine that Congress passes a statute authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency to require permits whenever material alterations are made to a “major stationary source” of air pollution (or new ones are created). So far, so good. Now imagine that a power plant near your home has three smokestacks. Does that count as one “major stationary source” or three? And what makes a stationary source “major”? Beyond these substantive questions is a procedural one: Who should resolve these matters? Unelected federal judges, who may have no particular expertise in environmental law, or the federal agency staffed with scientific and policy experts who do?.....
At its core, the Loper Bright decision is a transfer of power. The Supreme Court insists that it’s a transfer of power from unelected bureaucrats in unaccountable federal agencies to the people’s elected representatives. But that argument is based on two different fictions. Understanding those fictions also helps to understand the central complaint in Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent: that the majority opinion is nothing more than a massive, and potentially government-altering “grasp[] for power.”......
Agencies aren’t perfect. But neither are judges. And if the question is whether technical questions should be resolved by those with the relevant expertise who work for presidents for whom we have voted, or by generalist judges selected (and sometimes hand-picked) by plaintiffs with an ideological axe to grind, the answer shouldn’t have been this hard. Deference to executive branch agencies is something we’ll miss when (as of last Friday) it’s gone.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Steve, Steve, Steve. Aside from being a complete moron, the rubbish you publish isn’t even close to being right. It’s an opinion and frankly an opinion filled with inconsistencies and lies to satisfy a base of “useful idiots.”
The Left took a hit below the waterline on that one, imho.
“ And if the question is whether technical questions should be resolved by those with the relevant expertise who work for presidents for whom we have voted, …”
This premise is flawed. The president we vote for cannot fire the entrenched bureaucrats who make these decisions. Also, these politically appointed misfits, who couldn’t get a real job, may have very little relevant expertise but a very sharp axe to grind.
At least with congressional action these boneheaded decisions can be overturned.
EC
If someone sues you, the two of you get to stand before a judge and state your cases.
What we had until Chevron last week is if someone sues you, you two get to stand in front of the plaintiff’s family, state your cases, and they make the decision as to the merits of the case.
So, the Leftists can SHOVE IT. What happens now is that judge can hear both sides and experts from BOTH SIDES can be brought in, and considering that judges are pretty good at identifying BS, the outcomes will be far better.
I’m still trying to find where in that pesky constitution thingie that the fed was granted the right to regulate the environment.....
Who should resolve these matters? Unelected federal judges, who may have no particular expertise in environmental law, or the federal agency staffed with scientific and policy experts who do?.....
************************************************************
Mr. Vladeck, the SCOTUS got one right. Yes the bureaucrats have a few “experts” and Yes in a REAL WORLD America would be better off with the “experts” making the decisions. But, over the decades, it’s got so bad that you have to be a democrat and a marxist liberal to even get hired and if you are a republican you will likely get fired OR you have to be a particular skin color or you have to be a particular gender or have a particular sexual proclivity.
So, like all liberals all the time you are lying or your just too stupid to understand what’s going on. Your “agencies” are so anti business and so anti gun and so anti property and anti individual rights that SCOTUS determined that even Ray Charles could see the problem.
These kinds of conflicts of opinion, vision, interpretation of facts remind me why I am happy to have stepped out of the workaday world. Trying to find consensus or compromise to move forward surely and successfully when people see things so differently without simply exercising command and control is maddening. So many times I prayed for the wisdom of Solomon in how to divide the baby. It can be so much better to be a dictator than a leader but there are problems with that too.
The author misses the point. Neither agencies or judges are tasked with making laws. The judge is there to decide whether the rules published and enforced by an agency is what the legislation requires. Before if there was doubt the agency’s take on the matter was deferred to. Now if the intention of the legislation is not clear the job of making it so is returned to the legislators. Who may well decide to amend the statute to reflect how it was interpreted by the agency.
But point being the judges are not deciding what a regulation should be.
The problem begins with the Left-Progressives writing of the laws, to have ambiguities to be left to executive dictates to resolve. The problem arises from that, which is the Left-Progressives disdain for true democracy - Congress legislating the details, because that is messy, and with no assurance they’d get the results they want. “Leave it to the “experts” - a long held progressive philosophy.
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.