I used to feel this way, and I can't quite identify the totality of what shifted my position, but now I parse this as "we just need to motivate congress" and it feels wrong.
The American system has always been full-throated adversarial -- and extremely successful. The historical system of legislature could delegate, and if the delegation went bad, the judiciary could intervene, rather than the legislature has to intervene in every bit of administrative minutae.
Analogy would roughly be...idk, the CEO has HR handle pencil procurement. HR, over the years, used this to interpret they could swap in mechanical pencils, erasable pens. But the new CFO tells the board this has to stop, the CEO is responsible for signing off on expenses. And then the employees say this is a good thing, that'll get the CEO more involved. But the CEO is already involved, just busy with other things.
The problem aren’t interpretative courts, its unclear laws.
The pencil example is all fun and games, but swap « buying mechanical pencils » with « sending people to prison », and then it makes more sense why some people prefer the judiciary branch to constrain the power of HR when there’s ambiguity.
And more importantly getting the CEO involved in pencil procurement prevents the CEO from handling business development tasks that would bring in tons of mechanical pencil money. So it's penny wise but pound foolish.
What about this ruling stops Congress from explicitly granting interpretive power on some aspects of a law? The default now is implicit interpretive power, this ruling flips it.
Yesterday would you have said "Whats the problem? If congress disagrees with what the executive did to fill in the blanks in their laws, they just need to pass new laws."?
I have only grade school understanding of the branches but I was taught the executive branch is supposed to enforce what congress decides with laws which this reversal seems to support.
I think you are being sarcastic, but actually a radically reduced executive branch would be a huge step in the right direction for the actual rights of citizens to determine their own laws.
refulgentis|1 year ago
The American system has always been full-throated adversarial -- and extremely successful. The historical system of legislature could delegate, and if the delegation went bad, the judiciary could intervene, rather than the legislature has to intervene in every bit of administrative minutae.
Analogy would roughly be...idk, the CEO has HR handle pencil procurement. HR, over the years, used this to interpret they could swap in mechanical pencils, erasable pens. But the new CFO tells the board this has to stop, the CEO is responsible for signing off on expenses. And then the employees say this is a good thing, that'll get the CEO more involved. But the CEO is already involved, just busy with other things.
sattoshi|1 year ago
The pencil example is all fun and games, but swap « buying mechanical pencils » with « sending people to prison », and then it makes more sense why some people prefer the judiciary branch to constrain the power of HR when there’s ambiguity.
throwway120385|1 year ago
megaman821|1 year ago
enragedcacti|1 year ago
Powdering7082|1 year ago
xeromal|1 year ago
kogus|1 year ago
refurb|1 year ago
It seems like people don't understand how the system works.
Congress cries about Roe vs. Wade, but the power is entirely in their hands to pass federal law to secure abortion rights.
It's like the police crying that someone should do something about crime.
xocnad|1 year ago