[crazygringo]

Most stuff is best done by agencies staffed by experts that are set up by Congress in the first place -- not by Congress full of non-experts micromanaging things.

Congressional lawmaking is for the big-picture, long-term stuff. Agencies are supposed to have the ability to set rules as needed and respond quickly. This is a feature, not a bug.

And if Congress starts to see a pattern of a particular agency going way too far in some direction, then it can pass a law to further clarify the scope/limits of that agency whenever it wants. Congress hasn't given up any of its power. If it's not doing that, it's because it doesn't want to.

[macinjosh]

I disagree. Ask a panel of expert JS developers how something should be done and you'll get as many opinions as their are seats on the panel. In regulation it's the same but the decisions affect human lives and businesses that employ people.

Experts aren't unbiased either. It is nice when the experts you like are in power but what happens when someone else comes in?

[crazygringo]

So to continue the analogy, you'd rather have the board of the company, consisting of MBA CEO's, making decisions about a company's JavaScript standards?

Experts may disagree, but it's still a whole lot better than non-experts disagreeing.