SeaJ@lemm.ee 4 months ago
It totally makes sense to have a bunch of elected non experts go through the minutae of federal departments and how to implement policy. /s
SeaJ@lemm.ee 4 months ago
It totally makes sense to have a bunch of elected non experts go through the minutae of federal departments and how to implement policy. /s
FireTower@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Think you meant non elected.
But the point is that policy decisions aren’t to be made by courts or agencies. They are to be made by an elected legislature, informed by the Congregational Research Services. To ensure the separation of powers.
Then the Executive agencies are to be tasked with enforce of the law. And if conflict should arise in the understanding of the law the judiciary is to interpret the law. And while judges are not experts in everything they are the experts in statutory interpretation.
zbyte64@awful.systems 4 months ago
It’s a great narrative that happens to justify a power grab by the judicial branch; probably the least democratic of the three branches.
FireTower@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It absolutely the least democratic, they aren’t representatives they’re judges. They side with the laws enacted by the people, not the people. And all federal judges are appointed.
That power has been with the judicial branch for 180+ years before it was given by the Court to the agency in the 80s to prop up a Reagan interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
zbyte64@awful.systems 4 months ago
This doesn’t seem to be working as intended. We have “originalists” who turn that concept on it’s head and are explicitly a political project.