|
|
|
|
|
by refurb
719 days ago
|
|
> With or without Chevron, "unelected bureaucrats" end up interpreting the law. You really feel like there is no difference between a judge, schooled in the law and some GS-10 government employee? Really? In deciding whether or not the government is following a law passed by Congress? You know, acting as a judicial expert? The "exact same unelected bureaucrats"? Let me give you a real life example (from the people who brought the case to the Supreme Court) - the Dept of Fisheries decided that some fisherman required an observer to be on the boat when they fished (to make sure they followed regulations) and that they had to pay for it. That was never a part of the law, only a decision by a bureaucrat. It couldn't even be challenged in court due to Chevron. You feel that is a better situation than Americans saying "wait a second, why am I paying for this? that's not even in the law" and bringing the decision to a court of law? You feel like taking away that power from Americans is a good thing? |
|