Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sakos | Hacker News Reader

I feel like people don't actually realize what the consequences of this will really be.

https://today.law.harvard.edu/scotus-preview-west-virginia-v...

> “Supporters of the major questions doctrine would characterize this as taking power away from agencies and giving it to Congress, because they would say Congress is democratically accountable, and therefore should be making the major policy decisions,” says Goho. “Critics would say, ‘No, what’s happening is you’re taking power away from agencies, which have some degree of democratic accountability to the president, and you are actually granting the power to the courts, which are not democratically accountable at all.’”

This is the first step in dismantling regulatory bodies on a federal level. I have no idea how people can be supportive of the decision. It seems insane to me.

View on HN

Government agencies are comprised of people. The same people that work a desk job they hate. They're not elected, and don't have to demonstrate worth for the position, yet can execute sanctioned harm against individuals That's two major flaws that slaps democracy in the face.

People are dissilusioned by organizations out of their reach that can harm them, and they do not feel they are represented.

Iron Law is the name of the game for long standing organizations. That is, preserve the org first, not complete the mission. When you look into the deep history of federal corruption it's plain as day that it's overwhelmingly a political wheelhouse with only a sprinkle of objective.

Federal agencies that were once founded in earnest are long taken over by this principle. The founders have left the building.

The leadership of all agencies is appointed, not hired.

Is it a republic democracy if you elect a king?

> The same people that work a desk job they hate. They're not elected, and don't have to demonstrate worth for the position, yet can execute sanctioned harm against individuals That's two major flaws that slaps democracy in the face.

This is a gross misrepresentation. Civil servants can follow processes within the bounds set by Congress and are required to follow agency processes which are set carefully, with deliberation and public comment. There are appeals processes and the court system as remedies.

Yes, you hear about “abuses” – that’s because there’s an entire industry pumping out propaganda to support outcomes like this. The vast majority of the time when you look at the details it turns out either to be substantially different than claimed or a problem created by the Congress which the agency would prefer not to be saddled with.

The underlying problem here is that the Congress keeps getting slower & less functional. Delegating power more broadly helps reduce the impacts of that but at some point we have to make the Congress work better and that’s really hard to do when one of the major parties has a platform based on the idea that the government should be dysfunctional.

Rules are a suggestion, not a requirement. Nobody knows what they're doing, because they don't have to. There is no reward for accurate and efficient work.

Courts are no longer effective remedies for the average individual. The requirement of lawyers to operate courts excludes justice from anyone but the wealthy. As costs of education and elitism rise lawyers are becoming increasingly harder to find.

Large government is by nature dysfunctional. Same as mega corps. The larger you get the more inefficiency you attract and the more you can push out competition. As this increases people want anti trust.

The people want anti trust applied to the federal government.

It might not be a good idea, but google search will turn up the logic behind opposition to the power of the regulatory agencies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com