One of the points I've learned is almost six decades on this Earth is any bureaucracy, no matter how well planned or executed, has only one purpose. To insure its own existence. An interesting concept put forth by commentator Mark Levin in his book The Liberty Amendments is to sunset every federal agency every five years. These departments and agencies would have them justify their existence and organization to the Congress at regular a regular interval.
Too much you think? Well, in the lead up to New Year's 2000, we spent a fortune on preparing for the end of days because of software issues in computers. The world did not end on 1/1/00, but the federal department that oversaw Y2K prep until 2017.
I found this article interesting about the Supreme Court reviewing the power of federal agencies to interpret federal law. A major issue with the bureaucracy is they can put out regulations with the power of law, but there is little or no legislative oversight, and if you get called inot a labor court or other hearing, you are guilty until you prove your innocence (slight exaggeration).
From today's Washington Post:
Supreme Court divided over whether to curb the power of federal agencies
A divided Supreme Court debated whether and how to curtail the power of federal agencies Wednesday, with liberals urging the court to defer to the judgment of government experts and conservatives saying courts should not automatically favor government regulators over private companies, industry or individuals in litigation...
The high court was considering challenges to federal rules requiring commercial fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors. But the court’s decision has the potential to limit the flexibility of federal agencies to regulate vast swaths of American life, including the environment, financial markets, public health and the workplace.
Conservatives have long targeted the framework set in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council because it requires judges to defer to the reasonable interpretation of federal agency officials charged with administering ambiguous federal laws....
On Wednesday, Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch, both nominees of President Donald Trump, took turns peppering the Biden administration with skeptical questions as Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar defended the Trump administration initiative — and the longstanding Chevron precedent.
(Justices Brett) Kavanaugh said Chevron has allowed federal agencies to flip flop and impose new rules each time a new administration takes over, leaving judges with little choice but defer to the changing interpretations of agency officials.
“Something needs to be fixed here,” said (Justice Neil) Gorsuch, who has previously called for overturning the precedent.
I see the issue with the Chevron case, and Justice Gorsuch is right, the bureaucracy is going far beyond what this ruling meant, IMHO. But I really find this interesting:
The court’s three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — expressed concern about shifting power to unelected judges to make technical and scientific policy decisions when laws passed by Congress are not crystal clear.
“Judges should know what they don’t know,” Kagan said.
Jackson said she is worried about "courts becoming uber-legislators.”
Justice Kagan is worried about judges ruling on what they don't know! Justice Kagan, you voted in Dobbs v Jackson that the opinion of seven lawyers in black robes should overrule the citizens and governments of the fifty states, in violation of the 10th Amendment. Justice Jackson, that is exactly what you wanted when you voted against the Dobbs decision. And let's not forget Justice Sotomayor saying courts of appeal set government policy.
Ladies, it's not that you don't the judicial branch making policy or policy decisions, taking the legitimate decision from the legislative. You only want that with your preferred legislative policies.
Sorry, a major effort of the next Republican administration is to continue the work of the Trump presidency in appointing judges that will interpret the Constitution, and, in the wise worlds of the late Judge Robert Bork, "...where the Constitution is silent, leaves the policy struggles to Congress, the president, the legislatures and executives of the 50 states and to the American people . . . ."
No comments:
Post a Comment