[chrsig]

> I love this. I hope this trend catches on, I can't wait to gut these bloated agencies and force Congress to get back to work at the risk of a completely paralyzed society if they don't.

You seem to be making the bold assumption that both parties are acting in good faith. A completely paralyzed society is actually a victory for one party.

[vmception]

I don't find conservative appellate judges to be doing anything extreme. I don't find this 5th circuit one to have done so, I don't find the Supreme Court to have done so.

The thinnest rationale I've seen was that Florida Federal district judge that gutted the CDC order one month before it was going to expire anyway, in that case she spent a comical amount of time defining the word "sanitation" after finding a couple dictionaries from 1944, when the act was passed, specifically because Congress neglected to define and codify what sanitation meant for the purpose of the CDC's authority. I'm like "okay. thats low key hilarious" and I would love to see how this pans out on appeal.

I just am not finding the court system to be doing out of character things. I can independently find some outcomes to be shocking or inconvenient, but surprised based on my analysis of how I expect them to act? No. Nothing surprising occurring.

[zionic]

>mandate was about to expire

This isn’t relevant since they’d extended it many times. The whole “it’s about to expire!” thing was by design.

[salawat]

Technically not. The one party in question would only arguably win with some heavy repeals being passed.

[gamblor956]

Agreed, a paralyzed society is one where corruption flourishes unchecked.

Of course, given what happened with the last presidency, that is probably the desired outcome for everyone rooting for paralysis.