Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Chevron Doctrine case being heard by SCOTUS
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 4205548" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>As someone who enforces federal regs, I can tell you that some of them are terribly written. Some are so bad they're virtually unenforceable. In some cases, I think that WAS the intent. Sometimes Congress passes hot garbage just so they can say they "did something", without actually doing anything at all. That's because sometimes the electorate demand laws which do not comport with the Constitution or established law. Rather than grow a spine and explain why such laws can't be passed, congrescritters just pass this garbage and it stinks up the whole process.</p><p></p><p>The rub comes when an agency or department takes what was intended to be unenforceable and tries to make it enforceable. The originators of the language are often long gone by then and actual intent becomes irrelevant. When I have to examine a case, I try to consider the totality of the circumstance and what the intended or actual harm is. On a few rare occasions, someone will get away with doing something bad because the language written by Congress is simply not applicable. That's when I default to Blackstone's Formulation: "It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted."</p><p></p><p>There are more than a few federal regulators who don't embrace that philosophy, which is why the Chevron Defense needs to fall. Also, Trump's deregulation doctrine was one of the few beneficial EO's passed in recent history (Executive Order 13771 which stipulates which stipulates that “for every new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations [must] be identified for elimination.”). It doesn't guarantee that bad regs are replaced with more beneficial ones, but it certainly doesn't hurt!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 4205548, member: 1132"] As someone who enforces federal regs, I can tell you that some of them are terribly written. Some are so bad they're virtually unenforceable. In some cases, I think that WAS the intent. Sometimes Congress passes hot garbage just so they can say they "did something", without actually doing anything at all. That's because sometimes the electorate demand laws which do not comport with the Constitution or established law. Rather than grow a spine and explain why such laws can't be passed, congrescritters just pass this garbage and it stinks up the whole process. The rub comes when an agency or department takes what was intended to be unenforceable and tries to make it enforceable. The originators of the language are often long gone by then and actual intent becomes irrelevant. When I have to examine a case, I try to consider the totality of the circumstance and what the intended or actual harm is. On a few rare occasions, someone will get away with doing something bad because the language written by Congress is simply not applicable. That's when I default to Blackstone's Formulation: "It is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted." There are more than a few federal regulators who don't embrace that philosophy, which is why the Chevron Defense needs to fall. Also, Trump's deregulation doctrine was one of the few beneficial EO's passed in recent history (Executive Order 13771 which stipulates which stipulates that “for every new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations [must] be identified for elimination.”). It doesn't guarantee that bad regs are replaced with more beneficial ones, but it certainly doesn't hurt! [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Chevron Doctrine case being heard by SCOTUS
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom