Even if you think the back and forth isn't worthwhile, it's actually not politically avoidable because the other party will still play this game and you end up with a back and forth around an equilibrium further from what you might want.
Both major parties benefit from the status quo of Congress being incapable and everything being ephemeral—each can promise their stakeholders that if you elect them this cycle they'll make sure that things go their way for this cycle. The ephemeral nature of the "win" is valuable because if they actually made a permanent fix the urgency to elect party Y would be gone. It's the subscription model applied to governance.
My theory is that if you remove the administrative law game, things will quickly get broken enough that stakeholders will demand better, so both parties will get their act together and actually try to pass legislation again.
It's entirely possible that I'm wrong (and cue the inevitable "it's not both sides" comments), but unless something unexpected happens to the court system it looks like we'll get to see in a few years.
For example, now that the right has the supreme court, it has claimed a lot of extra power over regulatory agencies, elections and even congress. This effectively makes a right wing body the final arbiter; and end run over attempts to get the system working honestly.
I believe reform needs to be a lot more hands on to get things back on track.
If we want laws then we get congress to pass laws. This is how our system works. Congress' dysfunction is not an excuse to end-run around our system, it's a reason to fix congress.
Every* previous court has disagreed. This is just your opinion. Chevron has been de-facto the way things are done since the early 1900s.
You can disagree with Chevron, but you'd have to be both blind and deaf to think that's not a politically motivated position. At which point, I'm wondering how Hellen Keller got on hacker news.
As a side-note: the constitution is, in fact, up to interpretation. The textualist's interpretation is just one. It is not more correct and, actually, is typically obviously obtuse. I mean, it's a position based on the action of playing dumb.
>Congress' dysfunction is not an excuse to end-run around our system
Sure it is. The whole point of the judicial system is to interpret laws and make rulings based on interpretations. If congress hates that, they need to stop slapfighting.
Meanwhile, I believe executive orders have risen back to 40's/50's era orders (i.e. orders during World wars). Again, Judicial and Congressional can stop it but no one does half the time.
>it's a reason to fix congress.
I'm open to ideas.
Out of curiosity, is there a point in time where things were clearly "on track"?
Congress is unarguably dysfunctional but (I believe) SCOTUS had a pretty large part in helping them get to where they are today...and in the difficulties involved with getting things back on track.
One party doesn't believe that government should be making laws at all though.
Which means that the country, through their elected legislature, has not agreed on a policy. Not coming to a new decision doesn’t mean the executive branch gets carte blanche to make up the rules.
Not coming to an agreement means the country is not at enough of an agreement. If it’s truly popular it should pass Congress. If it’s not, it won’t.
And if it’s popular and it doesn’t pass, then there’s always elections to change Congress and try again.
The slow pace is a feature, not a bug.
Marijuana legalization is a great example. It's been consensus that it shouldn't have been as illegal as it was for decades yet it's only been consensus to treat it mostly like alcohol in a handful of states.
The consensus of "something should be done" can predate the consensus of "this should be done" by years or decades, especially nationally.
The 50/50 part of it - still there is federal vs state jurisdiction. If there's stuff on federal jurisdiction that's just a mess as far as congress never fixing it (say - immigration), states can do this and that about it somewhat (sanctuary city) - they can manage some rotten branches - but they can't touch the rotten root of federal jurisdiction
No, it means that the country has not agreed to the standard demanded by the constitution, which is an insanely high bar not required by virtually any other ostensibly democratic country.
The constitution is obsolete, undemocratic, and does not work in practice. Thus attempts to subvert it are completely legitimate. I don't understand the point of view that if the constitution says we have to do something a certain way, then we must do it that way, because those are The Rules, as if the constitution is some kind of law of nature.