Why progressive critics of the Loper Bright decision should want the Write the Laws Act.
|
|
Left-statists need to make up their minds. Do they want "good government" or do they just want as much government as possible?
The relevance of this can be seen in the consistent left-statist reaction to our legislative proposals.
The Read the Bills Act
All elected Democrats have refused to support our Read the Bills Act. They claim it's already too hard to pass their reform agenda. They really want more new laws and programs. Never mind whether those laws and programs are good or bad.
The One Subject at a Time Act
These left-statists have also refused to support our One Subject at a Time Act because they use bill clustering to sneak in measures that would likely fail on their own.
But don't "democrats" want laws that a majority supports?
The Loper Bright decision
And now we have the left-statist reaction to the recent Loper Bright Enterprises decision, where a legal brief we filed helped overturn Chevron Deference.
Remember, the Loper Bright Enterprises ruling holds that administrative agencies cannot interpret vague statutes so as to grant themselves NEW powers. In other words, the final authority for deciding what powers Congress has delegated to the Executive Branch lies with the Courts, not the bureaucrats.
You would think leftists would applaud this impediment to executive overreach in favor of the people's elected representatives in Congress. But no, they have positively lost their minds in reaction to this ruling.
Our previous message mentioned the responses from the New York Times, Common Cause, and even Barbara Streisand, but this article from NPR is also fascinating...
Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler, generally agreed with Friday's ruling, though he added that it may make it harder for the executive branch to react to major crises, like the COVID pandemic, or sudden disasters in the financial world:
You would think the bureaucratic response to COVID would make people like Adler want to give the bureaucrats less flexibility, not more. But the inside-out logic continues...
“This decision will make it more difficult for future administrations to change policy without going to Congress,” he said, noting that if there is a second Trump administration, “they will find out what it’s like to get what they wished for because, in a lot of contexts, it will be hard to dramatically change the way various federal statutes are implemented.”
That bit of analysis is flabbergasting. You would think left-statists want to give someone like Trump less power, not more. Instead, the desire seems to be that bureaucrats should rule independently of both Congress and the President, especially if that President is a Republican!
Why is that? It's because…
Left-statists think agency bureaucrats are EXPERTS
They also believe that these Experts know more than everyone else, especially politicians! [I demonstrated that in my most recent Gracearchy episode.]
Well, they may even be right about that in many cases. But what about the cases where they're wrong?
Did Anthony Fauci give sound expert advice during the COVID hysteria? Isn't it true that Senator Rand Paul has punctured that myth through dogged questioning during Senate hearings? And isn't it also true that Fauci's bad actions have caused chaos throughout the world?
Isn't the danger of Expert Error part of why we have checks and balances that derive from the divided powers of three separate branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial?
Don't we need all three branches to increase the chances that The State will minimize Expert Error? And doesn't Loper Bright enhance the likelihood of the separate powers working by involving both Congress and the courts? As the NPR article notes...
The consistent message of Friday’s decision, Adler said, is that agencies can’t interpret old statutes to fix new problems. As he put it, “agencies don’t get to pour new wine out of old bottles.” They have to go back to Congress when a new problem arises.
That last sentence should give left-statists direction...
Democrats should want the Write the Laws Act!
If they really want to gain the value they think experts bring, they can have their beloved experts propose new rules for Congress to consider.
Taking this step removes the threat that the courts would overturn their regulations!
In other words, the Write the Laws Act is the proper way for experts to help Congress and the proper way to avoid judicial rejection. So...
If you hear a Democrat complain about the Loper Bright Enterprises decision, tell them about the Write the Laws Act. Send them to our Write the Laws page. Ask them to join The 300 in their district to get their local rep and Senators to co-sponsor this legislation.
|
|
|
If you’re already a member of The 300 for this bill, please make a contribution or start a monthly pledge so we can spread the word about WTLA to more people. Thank you!
Set your own agenda,
Jim Babka, President
Agenda Setters by Downsize DC
|
|
|
|
|
