[crazy1van]

> Congress has delegated the authority to make these decisions to regulatory agencies

Yes, but at some point there must be a limit to how much power they can delegate. If Congress created a new Super-Congress that it granted all the powers of Congress, I would contend that would be unconstitutional. It clearly goes against the founding principles of having three branches of government. That would be akin to the government creating a fourth branch without amending the constitution.

Amending the constitution is a process that is clearly defined by the constitution. If that process isn't needed to create a fourth branch of government, a change that changes the core of the constitution, what would it ever be needed for and why would they have included it?

[redblacktree]

It would be up to the judicial branch to make those determinations. So far, they are broadly OK with the delegation that has happened.

[betwixthewires]

...except for the delegation of power to mandate vaccines apparently, which is the focus of this discussion.

If we are going to talk about what's the right answer from a position of "if the court says it that's how it goes" then I can assume you're happy with this court decision?

[redblacktree]

Yes, I'm happy with it from a "balance of power" perspective. I would like a different outcome, regarding vaccine mandates, but that responsibility lies with congress, and unfortunately one of our political parties is anti-science and anti-vaccine, which means it won't happen.

Still, I'm happy that we're not breaking the rules for the convenience of getting an outcome I'd like better.