Hacker News Reader

Comment by Hnrobert42 | Hacker News Reader

It seems you are using the term career bureaucrat as a pejorative. Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians.

In any event, large decisions like this are made by political appointees appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

With Chevron overturned, we are now allowing unelected career judges interpreting policy however they see fit. If we were still in a world where precedent mattered and judges set their personal beliefs about policy aside and instead neutrally interpreted conformance with the law, sure. But as we now are packing the judiciary with partisans, it seems we've just substitutef one bad for another.

View on HN

Unelected career justices that make really dumb mistakes when it comes to basic facts: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/06/28/supreme...

I don’t mean it as a pejorative - I agree that these folks are (often) experts in the area they’re working in. I mean only that the creation of laws does not belong to the bureaucracy, nor the interpretation of laws. Bureaucrats are also not as accountable to the voter (how many execute branch employees have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate?) as the legislature.

I think that overturning Chevron should light a fire under the collective behinds of both parties in Congress to write more specific laws that legislate precisely. I am sure it will be mayhem for a while, unfortunately, as decades of laws will be interpreted by the courts for the first time, but in the end it should result in a structure that I believe conforms better to the intended structure (legislators legislate laws which are executed by the executive branch and whether or not those laws are upheld is judged by the judiciary).

> Often, they have far more expertise in the subject than career politicians.

This is not relevant to their right to legislate or assume duties that the constitution has delegated to congress.

It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules. That seems fairly obvious to me but I suppose some segments of the political spectrum advocate blind rule making.

> delegated to congress

Right, and Congress has made that law, and that law says it's delegated to the FTC. What, Congress is simultaneously expected to make every single rule ever but they don't even have the rule making power to... delegate? That's too far? Seems absurd to me, almost intentionally insane with the end-goal of kneecapping rule making as a whole.

> It is relevant, because you require expertise to make rules.

No. In a democratic republic, you require the consent of the governed to make rules, not expertise.

I suppose it’s a good thing we elected the person who appointed the heads of federal agencies. You’re moving the goal posts.

The executive has no authority to legislate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com