[dilippkumar]

> Now Congress is going to have to specify every possible consequence of laws in the statutes, otherwise a judge will decide.

> So agencies will not have any power to actually regulate.

This honestly sounds perfect.

If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.

[CuriouslyC]

I hope you enjoy drinking your poison water and breathing your poison air as much as the companies that skirt environmental regulations enjoy their cost savings.

[HumblyTossed]

> This honestly sounds perfect.

> If this is the actual end result of this ruling, we’ll all be in a much much better place.

There's no way. But, I guess we'll find out. I hope HN is around in 10 years so we can see who is right.

[unethical_ban]

We disagree. I prefer an effective administration of government.

[Mountain_Skies]

What's your definition of effective and how are you evaluating if the administrative government is meeting your definition?

[unethical_ban]

I think a technocratic executive bureaucracy, created and overseen by the legislature, is better than demanding the legislature directly craft all regulations and have judges adjudicate every nuance.

[Gormo]

Why do you think that's better? Whose priorities and interests do we expect these 'technocratic executive bureaucracies' to pursue if allowed to be the arbiters of their own authority, and what mechanism would ensure they remain accountable to the public and operate within the applicable constraints of prevailing law and the constiution?

[unethical_ban]

Why do you think a crippled group of 500 generalists should write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life?

Why do you think federal agencies are arbiters of their own authority? Congress created them, Congress can reel them in.

I don't mean to say that executive agencies shouldn't be held to the Constitution or the law. Who says they shouldn't? But they should be allowed to have a broad mandate.

Maybe, MAYBE some kind of rubber stamp process where legislators get a 90 day window on rejecting new regulations with a "default approve". But I have no faith that a modern society can have all rules and edge cases pre-emptively defined in law.

[Gormo]

> Why do you think a crippled group of 500 generalists should write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life?

They shouldn't. No single entity should ever be allowed to "to write every single detail of regulatory code for every facet of American life".

Thankfully, with this decision, we have restored a situation where law and policy are developed and refined through the interplay of disparate branches of government with ultimate accountability to the public itself, with edge cases handled by the specialists who actually have the relevant expertise in interpreting law.

> I don't mean to say that executive agencies shouldn't be held to the Constitution or the law. Who says they shouldn't?

Well, that's the implicit argument of the people who are saying they should continue to be allowed to act as the arbiters of their own authority, without judicial oversight.

> But they should be allowed to have a broad mandate.

Unelected appointees who are hired on the basis of their expertise in a technical field, without necessarily having any special competence at handling the normative aspect of their duties, should absolutely not have a broad mandate to decide what the limits of their own authority are.

[Dalewyn]

Agreed. If Congress or Executive agencies don't want the judiciary interpreting the laws in various ways they should write laws with no room for interpretation.

The couts giving/forcing (back) power to the legislature where laws are supposed to be written, deliberated, and passed is a very good thing.

[ModernMech]

Exactly how do you write a law that has no room for interpretation? What does that process look like exactly, and how do you achieve it at scale in a changing and dynamic world where the meanings of words change over time?

I think what you’re saying is the equivalent of “just write software without bugs and everything will be fine”

Yeah sure… but easier said than done.

[klyrs]

> Exactly how do you write a law that has no room for interpretation?

Funny question in light of Fischer vs. US. The majority found that the text of a law didn't mean what they believed it should, so they threw out the text and went with their feelings. How can one write a law with no room for interpretation, to be understood by a court who can't be trusted to retain the letter of the law?

[Dalewyn]

Generally speaking, a specific law is always better than a vague law. It allows for more fairer enforcement and better understanding of the law concerned.

If the words written on paper don't actually mean anything and can be interpreted wildly, what is even the point of passing laws?

Writing and passing unnecessarily vague laws open to interpretation and saying your job is done is like Bethesda publishing a bug infested game and saying they have a finished product. No, your work is shit, go back to the workshop.

[ModernMech]

Well I think there's quite a difference between what you originally said ("with no room for interpretation") and what you now say ("don't actually mean anything and can be interpreted wildly").

I think lawmakers strive to write laws that are precise enough that they can't be interpreted wildly, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect lawmakers to craft laws that have no room for interpretation.

[nielsbot]

Hate to break it to you, but your Libertarian fantasy will not work out the way you think it will.

We are going to see more pollution, more child labor, more exploitation of poor immigrants and more hoarding of wealth by the few among other side effects.

There's a reason only the "conservative" SCOTUS justices have billionaire "friends".