It is a negative limitation, not a power affirmation. Such actions will simply say the law, as written, doesn’t grant that authority. This would then revert to the principal that the executive branch executes, not legislates. If the executive feels it needs the authority, it is free to use the political process and appeal to the legislature to debate, and if in agreement, modify the law to grant the authority.
1 Like
That is all correct. It will still be a judicial edict. We don’t get to side-step that language just because we like what the edict does.
1 Like
So reaffirming the separation of powers is a mere judicial edict.
The Judiciary should pay deference in interpretation to the executive, they should not pay so much deference however, that they essentially allow them to ignore the clear intent of the law or the constitution. The idea that they should is not new. It did not start with Chevron; it has always been thus. The idea being, since the executive is the body that must enforce the law their interpretation should be given weight, so long as it complies with the law and the constitution. People forget, courts do not decide cases based on their own opinions, they decide them based on the arguments bought before them.
1 Like
There seems to be a pretty good argument, based on the robust use of the executive pushing the envelope since Chevron, that too much deference has become the norm.
3 Likes
That is an opinion, not an argument.
my issue would be more a problem of the willful politicization of the court which is seen best in decisions like Obamacare where both sides argued that it was NOT a tax. That issue was not in controversy. Robert’s opinion ignored this fact and he decided to settle an argument that was never made. His opinion was nothing more than political expedience. Same again on DACA which is clearly and without doubt unconstitutional. That’s not deference, it’s obeisance.
ETA: These actions usurp the Congressional power to make, or not make laws as they see fit.
1 Like
It’s a fact.
The argument gets made all the time these days that basing rulings on originalist principles, rather than current attitudes, is political. I see the courts ruling scope of authority as based on the hard language of the law, rather than the political whims of the executive, as something in the vein of originalist rulings.
Why?
…
ask Marshal, he’s the first one who said so.
So long as the interpretation being used fits within the scope of the law and the constitution, why wouldn’t they?
You said it here.
When did you agree to be ruled by unelected bureaucrats?
Thinking about bureaucrats, just how many of our problems come out of those fools, almost all of whom are in the executive branch.
The principal is simple. Since the executive is charged with enforcing the law, to do so they must interpret what it says. So long as that interpretation fits within the scope of the law and the constitution, why would the court change it?
people forget, courts do not actually interpret laws for the other branches, all they do is decide which interpretation presented to them in argument is more correct.
its a branch of government and I get my say about who leads it. When did you decide to be ruled by black robed tyrants?
Bureacrats is a branch of government?
have a nice day
1 Like
Maybe we need better written laws.
Did you ever consider that maybe the VUCA is intentional?
They aren’t held accountable in any real way. So they always overreach beyond their mandate.
2 Likes
