[civilized]

I don't understand how this is supposed to work or why we would believe it would work. Why would we want politicians haggling over the nitty gritty details of how to regulate, for example, pollution? Applying cost-benefit analysis to make rules for countless pollutants and toxins? When they themselves apparently would rather delegate this to experts?

[vmception]

The courts and agencies still have the option of finding a different rationale to reach the same desired goal.

If they can't, then they have to rely on Congress, if they can't then national government cant be involved.

Simple order of operations.

[civilized]

Legally, it's a very flimsy basis on which to attack the current structure and operation of the country. It is simply untrue that Congress is not allowed to delegate its powers, and where to draw the line has always been a subjective judgment that different courts have drawn differently. https://constitution.findlaw.com/article1/annotation03.html

And frankly, I think the anti-administrative state people are on the payroll of polluters who want the regulators to be politicians who are more dependent on big business for funds.

Congress should be allowed to leave things to the experts if it wants to. After all, it is free to change the scope of regulatory agencies at any time.

[vmception]

You're in luck, my excerpt from today's court ruling is immediately followed by acknowledging more recent rulings.

> According to the Supreme Court’s more recent formulations of that longstanding rule, Congress may grant regulatory power to another entity only if it provides an “intelligible principle” by which the recipient of the power can exercise it.

But then the hits just keep on coming

> We first conclude that Congress has delegated to the SEC what would be legislative power absent a guiding intelligible principle.

>cue laugh track<

[salawat]

"Everything is securities fraud" actually kinda props up the assertion that an intelligible principle was not achieved in my book. Not gonna lie.