So unelected judges should be required to rely on the testimony of unelected bureaucrats?
Even the Supreme Court has trouble differentiating its party drugs from its pollutants, with a level of understanding equivalent to a street junkie. Judges have no business making regulatory decisions, they should be left up to actual experts.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme...
Then why is congress be denied the same latitude (via agencies)?
> Then why is congress be denied the same latitude (via agencies)?
Come on, that's obviously false. Even in an alternative world where agency rule-making was totally abolished, and everything has to be enacted directly through legislation, Congress could still defer to experts to draft that legislation.
Also the courts themselves are supposed to be the experts at interpreting legislation. In our system of government, it's their job to have the final say about that.
Let me put it another way: do you think it would be a good idea for judges to be required to defer to prosecutors (also in the executive branch) on the interpretation of criminal law? (e.g. "Prosecutor: Your honor, the defendant is guilty because I say the law says he is. Judge: OK, your call. How long should we lock him up for?")
What are the odds that the experts a biased towards special interests? How many laws do you suppose congress can write in one session? How many laws will now need to be written to match the average number rules developed by all agencies per year over the past 40 years since Chevron? In practice, this will result in gigantic acts that members of congress can't read before voting, amd increase the likelihood of loopholes. Which is intentional, IMO.
Frankly, when the judges and politicians who believe there are too many rules/too much government and decry government dysfunction suggest the answer is more rules or better laws (completely disregarding self-professed dysfunction), I won't take their words at face value, the sudden confidence in government competence and efficiency is likely tactical in pursuit of "dismantling the administrative state" (an actual stated goal).
Did the word choice have any bearing on the ruling? No, it didn't?
So we are clutching at pearls.
Politically appointed bureaucrats typically have none of these skills, are always beholden to people in power, and often are given an agenda to peruse.
Congress outsourcing law making to bureaucrats is unconstitutional and SCOTUS made the right call legally. If it causes problems, Congress is empowered to fix it.
please spare us, as Clarence Thomas continues to accept tens of millions of dollars in gifts and free airfare from billionaires with business before the court, unabated
Very simple and very wrong.
Yes, partisan politicians appoint judges with legal principles that they favor but that doesn't make the judges themselves partisan.
Trump's SCOTUS appointees have all decided cases in ways that were distinctly not partisan, based on their legal principles and not any kind of party loyalty.
Partisan people (like yourself, presumably) don't even notice these decisions or try to downplay them. This is hyper partisanship itself and it's toxic to a democracy.
Because laws often have room for interpretation, conservative justices tend to decide cases in ways that the conservative Republican Party agrees with. And liberal justices tend to decide cases in ways that the liberal Democratic Party agrees with.
But both conservative and liberal justices very often decide cases in ways that go against their own personal views. The Supreme Court judges that Trump appointed have done this multiple times.