[adriand]

> How is it "taking the enforcement out of the hands of the experts?" Judges are supposed to be experts on law.

Because the laws are about particular things in the real world that have nothing to do with the legal system. They are frequently about scientific matters, for example. What constitutes a threat to public health? What constitutes pollution of a waterway?

When Congress authorizes an agency to maintain, say, clean drinking water, it entrusts scientific experts to determine, based on the most up-to-date evidence, what constitutes a pollutant that is harmful to human health. We do not need Congress to pass a new law every time we get new scientific evidence that a particular chemical (say, PFAS), is harmful.

[psunavy03]

> Because the laws are about particular things in the real world that have nothing to do with the legal system.

The laws have nothing to do with the legal system? That's a new one.

[stale2002]

Thats great and all. But if congress wants that power to be delegated to those agencies, then they should write a law to do so.

Thats all people here want. Whatever power it is that you think that agencies should have, try to pass a law to do that first.

[vkou]

They did do that, every agency exists with a mandate.

SCOTUS just decided that despite the madnates existing, being funded, and being regularly renewed, that's not good enough.

But they haven't defined how specific the mandate and laws must be. They can just, you know, keep shifting the goal posts until they get the desired result.

[stale2002]

> that's not good enough.

Then make a law saying that yes this is ok and good enough.

Problem solved.