As a recovering bureaucrat in the state of California, I can attest that the state's APA is nothing but a huge thumb for the government on the scales of justice. One can hope that the current unwinding of the undemocratic administrative state at the national level will sooner or later make it to the state realm and begin to undo the damage done for years all because the legislature doesn't want to do its job.
Responding to a particularly idiotic bit in Norm Ornstein's public display of idiocy regarding these US Supreme Court decisions: his analogy to the Hungarian courts? I don't understand the ruling court's obsession with denigrating Hungary, a beautiful and unique nation (with excellent food and wine). Hungary, with its indecipherable language and occasional flashes of Asian customs, is an outsider country within Europe. Hungary also is a republican democracy. Probably more so than any other country in the E.U. Viktor Orban is very popular there -- much more popular than most other European leaders -- because he does what the very nationalistic Hungarian people want and not what the EU/Davis/WEF/Klaus Schwab elites dictate. Doing the will of the Hungarian people somehow has made him the enemy of the globalist elite. And -- this is probably the most critical fact -- George Soros hates Orban. And the feeling seems to be very mutual.
Why not take all of the ALJ's out of the various agencies, independent or not, and combine them in a single Article III court? They could still specialize, but the agencies could no longer act as prosecutor, judge, and jury. Also collect all of the SWAT teams, etc., from the agencies and combine them into an enforcement force under the DOJ (but not in the FBI). If the agencies want to bring heat, let them convince Justice it is necessary. It's called the separation of powers.
And regarding the ALJ's: I've been wondering that for decades. Back in my young-adult days, when I first read up on how regulatory agencies operate, it seemed to me like the entire ALJ setup was unconstitutional from the get-go. But since nearly everyone else seemed to be OK with it, I just assumed that I didn't know enough about Constitutional law to understand it. But apparently I was right all along. Looking back, it amazes me that this unconstitutional edifice has been allowed to stand for over a half-century. I know that back in the 1960s, the technocratic state was generally thought of as a good thing, but still.
I wonder if the impact of Loper/Relentless will be more significant than some people think. Studies may show that it didn't make that much difference in the cases actually brought, but how many cases weren't brought because of the Chevron doctrine? I'm willing to bet that "the law is whatever we say it is" discouraged a lot of potential plaintiffs from bringing reasonable cases.
Great explanation, with the appropriate amount of snark. I laughed out loud several times. Now, if we can reverse Wilbert, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, we are on our way
Thank you , Professor. An excellent and cogent explanation for us laymen.
Loper: No Regulation Without Representation
As a recovering bureaucrat in the state of California, I can attest that the state's APA is nothing but a huge thumb for the government on the scales of justice. One can hope that the current unwinding of the undemocratic administrative state at the national level will sooner or later make it to the state realm and begin to undo the damage done for years all because the legislature doesn't want to do its job.
I wonder how this will affect the WCAB and UI admin courts....
Thanks for your clear and reasoned explanation for 'the rest of us.' Restoring the Constitution just might catch on.
Responding to a particularly idiotic bit in Norm Ornstein's public display of idiocy regarding these US Supreme Court decisions: his analogy to the Hungarian courts? I don't understand the ruling court's obsession with denigrating Hungary, a beautiful and unique nation (with excellent food and wine). Hungary, with its indecipherable language and occasional flashes of Asian customs, is an outsider country within Europe. Hungary also is a republican democracy. Probably more so than any other country in the E.U. Viktor Orban is very popular there -- much more popular than most other European leaders -- because he does what the very nationalistic Hungarian people want and not what the EU/Davis/WEF/Klaus Schwab elites dictate. Doing the will of the Hungarian people somehow has made him the enemy of the globalist elite. And -- this is probably the most critical fact -- George Soros hates Orban. And the feeling seems to be very mutual.
Why not take all of the ALJ's out of the various agencies, independent or not, and combine them in a single Article III court? They could still specialize, but the agencies could no longer act as prosecutor, judge, and jury. Also collect all of the SWAT teams, etc., from the agencies and combine them into an enforcement force under the DOJ (but not in the FBI). If the agencies want to bring heat, let them convince Justice it is necessary. It's called the separation of powers.
"the still unexplained mass shooting in Las Vegas"
Yes. To that add the still unexplained attempted bombings of the RNC and DNC around the time of January 6.
Those two seem eerily similar to me. Something tells me that if we ever learn the truth, there's going to be a common denominator.
Chris Wray
OSHA is a much bigger “law making” organization. Hopefully they’re the next target.
Great explanation of the Court’s decisions.
I find it strange that Norm Ornstein has been associated with AEI for such a long time. It makes no sense.
Thanks, Prof Reynolds.
Worth the price of yearly subscription, in this post.
Enjoy your writing (reasoning). Deep state resents those who tell truths.
The problem is that politics can't survive the truth.
Question, will the overturning of NRDC v. Chevron start to reign in the sue and settle activists on the Left?
Thanks Glenn, excellent summary. I've passed it along to family members who asked for a readable account of the meaning of this important decision.
And regarding the ALJ's: I've been wondering that for decades. Back in my young-adult days, when I first read up on how regulatory agencies operate, it seemed to me like the entire ALJ setup was unconstitutional from the get-go. But since nearly everyone else seemed to be OK with it, I just assumed that I didn't know enough about Constitutional law to understand it. But apparently I was right all along. Looking back, it amazes me that this unconstitutional edifice has been allowed to stand for over a half-century. I know that back in the 1960s, the technocratic state was generally thought of as a good thing, but still.
I wonder if the impact of Loper/Relentless will be more significant than some people think. Studies may show that it didn't make that much difference in the cases actually brought, but how many cases weren't brought because of the Chevron doctrine? I'm willing to bet that "the law is whatever we say it is" discouraged a lot of potential plaintiffs from bringing reasonable cases.
Great explanation, with the appropriate amount of snark. I laughed out loud several times. Now, if we can reverse Wilbert, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, we are on our way