SCOTUS thread

Congress cannot, and will not, refine laws to such a degree that they cover all eventualities in all fields. And they shouldn't because anyone who's ever listened to a member of congress talk about the internet knows these people do not understand even basic technology. 

Congress needs to lay the framework, and the experts - the people running these agencies, who are appointed by elected officials - fine-tune the law to the specific area.

That's how it's worked since this country was founded, and while not perfect, it is the best model.

This SCOTUS understands that, which is why they gifted corporations yet another ruling (like Citizens United) which further puts us on the path to an oligarchy.

 
knapplc said:
Congress cannot, and will not, refine laws to such a degree that they cover all eventualities in all fields. And they shouldn't because anyone who's ever listened to a member of congress talk about the internet knows these people do not understand even basic technology. 

Congress needs to lay the framework, and the experts - the people running these agencies, who are appointed by elected officials - fine-tune the law to the specific area.

That's how it's worked since this country was founded, and while not perfect, it is the best model.

This SCOTUS understands that, which is why they gifted corporations yet another ruling (like Citizens United) which further puts us on the path to an oligarchy.
Click to expand...
SOOOOOO true!

 
The executive branch should not and cannot have absolute authority on how to interpret laws made by Congress.   This is why Chevron was decided the way it was.   People having a hissy fit about Chevron have blinders on thinking the bureaucrats have zero power in deciding how to interpret the laws they are tasked at implementing.   They now don’t have the unchecked power they previously enjoyed.  

 
Archy1221 said:
The executive branch should not and cannot have absolute authority on how to interpret laws made by Congress.   This is why Chevron was decided the way it was.   People having a hissy fit about Chevron have blinders on thinking the bureaucrats have zero power in deciding how to interpret the laws they are tasked at implementing.   They now don’t have the unchecked power they previously enjoyed.  
Click to expand...
And you're wearing your own set of blinders thinking that congress is purposefully going to write well defined laws and not exploit this obvious loophole for political reasons.

And, as @knapplc previously noted, it is impossible for Congress to write perfect laws that govern all scenarios. There are going to be OBVIOUS holes in laws when unforeseen situations arise.

 
knapplc said:
Congress cannot, and will not, refine laws to such a degree that they cover all eventualities in all fields. And they shouldn't because anyone who's ever listened to a member of congress talk about the internet knows these people do not understand even basic technology. 

Congress needs to lay the framework, and the experts - the people running these agencies, who are appointed by elected officials - fine-tune the law to the specific area.

That's how it's worked since this country was founded, and while not perfect, it is the best model.

This SCOTUS understands that, which is why they gifted corporations yet another ruling (like Citizens United) which further puts us on the path to an oligarchy.
Click to expand...
That's EXACTLY true. In no way shape or form, do we want congress trying to refine laws so detailed that they encompass every possible scenario in real life.  That's why we have experts then to take the laws and apply them.

I get what Republicans are trying to do.  But, it's absolutely idiotic in reality.  It's a pie in the sky idea that just is going to be a disaster.

There are regulations that I get very frustrated at.  What they need to be doing is refining a system where people/industries can contest the regulation to someone above who made the initial decision and work it that way.

An example is that we are not allowed to store wood pallets outside anymore.  Why?  Because the nails rust.  Our pallets don't sit around.  It's not like we have piles and piles of pallets that have sat here for months or years.  So, they expect us to build a big building just to set piles of wood pallets in.  Meanwhile, look around at all the other metal things in the world that are sitting around rusting and nobody seems to care about them.  So...there should be a way we could contest that up the food chain to people who look at it logically.  Do Republicans actually think I'm going to be able to go meet with my congressman and have him write a new law, get it passed through congress and signed by the President just so I can set pallets outside for a short time till someone comes and picks them up?  Stupid!!!!

 
BigRedBuster said:
An example is that we are not allowed to store wood pallets outside anymore.  Why?  Because the nails rust.  Our pallets don't sit around.  It's not like we have piles and piles of pallets that have sat here for months or years.  So, they expect us to build a big building just to set piles of wood pallets in.  Meanwhile, look around at all the other metal things in the world that are sitting around rusting and nobody seems to care about them.  So...there should be a way we could contest that up the food chain to people who look at it logically.  Do Republicans actually think I'm going to be able to go meet with my congressman and have him write a new law, get it passed through congress and signed by the President just so I can set pallets outside for a short time till someone comes and picks them up?  Stupid!!!!
Click to expand...
This isn't really the intention. Republicans think government is bad and they're going to leave it to business to police themselves. It's just a way for Koch Industries to reduce costs so they can comply with less regulations. That's it. There isn't some grand idea working in the back, a plan to write better laws or come up with some framework to make the new regulatory environment work better for business.

The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society doesn't like government and they've fought to reduce it's power. The scheme ends there. No thought is given to what we do after we reach that point; and they don't care. 

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
This isn't really the intention. Republicans think government is bad and they're going to leave it to business to police themselves. It's just a way for Koch Industries to reduce costs so they can comply with less regulations. That's it. There isn't some grand idea working in the back, a plan to write better laws or come up with some framework to make the new regulatory environment work better for business.

The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society doesn't like government and they've fought to reduce it's power. The scheme ends there. No thought is given to what we do after we reach that point; and they don't care. 
Click to expand...
Probably true!

 
BigRedBuster said:
Yes.

What so many Republicans can't wrap their little brains around is that, whatever they want passed for Trump....they also pass for Democrats.
Click to expand...
Kind of untrue.

SCOTUS is dominated by Conservatives, so while Democratic Presidents seemly also have more power, when they do it SCOTUS will step in and carve out exemptions. When Republican Presidents do it, they won't.

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
And you're wearing your own set of blinders thinking that congress is purposefully going to write well defined laws and not exploit this obvious loophole for political reasons.

And, as @knapplc previously noted, it is impossible for Congress to write perfect laws that govern all scenarios. There are going to be OBVIOUS holes in laws when unforeseen situations arise.
Click to expand...
What that person noted was more fear mongering nonsense  They don’t have to write perfect laws.  They should write BETTER laws however and Unelected bureaucrats now do not enjoy absolute power in deciding what is or isn’t appropriate within the scope of the law.   Most times the bureaucrats  will get it right, but when they obviously error outside the intended law or in an unconstitutional basis, they are now able to be checked on it.   That’s a good thing!  An unchecked Administrative State is a bad thing! 

 
BigRedBuster said:
That's EXACTLY true. In no way shape or form, do we want congress trying to refine laws so detailed that they encompass every possible scenario in real life.  That's why we have experts then to take the laws and apply them
Click to expand...
That won’t necessarily stop either.  It’s the application in erroneous ways that will now be able to be challenged in a better way.   

BigRedBuster said:
There are regulations that I get very frustrated at.  What they need to be doing is refining a system where people/industries can contest the regulation to someone above who made the initial decision and work it that way.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, this is what is now going to be able to happen 

 
Archy1221 said:
What that person noted was more fear mongering nonsense  They don’t have to write perfect laws.  They should write BETTER laws however and Unelected bureaucrats now do not enjoy absolute power in deciding what is or isn’t appropriate within the scope of the law.   Most times the bureaucrats  will get it right, but when they obviously error outside the intended law or in an unconstitutional basis, they are now able to be checked on it.   That’s a good thing!  An unchecked Administrative State is a bad thing! 
Click to expand...
While I don't disagree, the question that @knapplc raised is of the previous system was the best we could do given the obvious constrains Congress has when writting laws.

We traded "annoying bureaucrats get it right most of the time" to "exploitable, non-experts making political choices where they have no business making them".

While not perfect, one system is preferable to another.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Strangelove said:
We traded "annoying bureaucrats get it right most of the time" to "exploitable, non-experts making political choices where they have no business making them".
Click to expand...
I’m sorry and not trying to be difficult but I don’t understand what you mean in the second part.  Unelected Bureaucrats will  still be a big part of this system as I understand things.  They just won’t have unchecked power anymore 

 
Archy1221 said:
I’m sorry and not trying to be difficult but I don’t understand what you mean in the second part.  Unelected Bureaucrats will  still be a big part of this system as I understand things.  They just won’t have unchecked power anymore 
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the ruling is largely going to cause most of the the work to:

1.) The courts, who are also unelected. Unlike the bureaucrats they also are not experts in the fields they will be ruling on,  and as Judge Cannon proves, they are often hyper partisan. This is by design: the Federalist Society dominates the judiciary and will continue to do so. The administrative state is now whatever they want it to be. 

2.) Congress writing laws with the intention of leaving intrepation to the courts. They will do so with the understanding that courts are partisan and are is favorable or unfavorable to what they want. 

 
Back
Top