Oh, I disagree strongly, I am not in any way comfortable with handing over the operation of the entire federal government, including INCREDIBLY complex issues to unelected, lifetime appointed judges who are demonstrating more and more partisanship.
The examples I presented were just a few examples of the madness of handing over complex issues like wetlands to judges who have zero experience in the field-zero. They rely on testimony that is patently absurd and come to dangerous, inexplicable decisions that naturally benefit of monied interest.
The theory they espouse, as do you imply, is that this is a mechanism to return the power to the Legislative Branch, that is simply not workable.
Do yourself a favor and look at the number of agencies:
www.federalregister.gov
Every one of those was established via legislation.
Every one of those agencies generates and promulgates rules INTERPRETING and implementing the laws that Congress passes. The essential nature of any agency is to interpret the laws that created it.
That is a MASSIVE number of regulations.
Now the theory is instead of the agencies interpreting these laws and promulgating rules and deferring to these agencies' expertise, ambiguities will be adjudicated. WeLLLLLLL, a lawyer can find ambiguity in 1+1=2. As we are seeing from this Supreme Court and several of the federal courts, specious arguments with no logic or foundation are finding their way into winning decisions. In other words, despite stare decisis, despite governmental experts courts are creating law out of thin air. That is an unjust system.
One of the unstated goals of Project 2025 is this dismantling of the federal government. They want to do away with the Executive Branch interpreting laws and pass that power to the unelected, unaccountable judiciary.
Are we expected to believe that Congress can react to this disruption in the regulatory process? That they can pass a massive number of bills every year addressing the issues that were addressed by agencies? We are talking funding, expansion of legislative definitions into emerging issues, conflict over how to interpret legislation.
Use the Mifepristone case as an example, should the FDA have to go back nearly every year to have Congress issue new laws with each change in the knowledge database on the drug regarding efficacy or how the drug should be produced, marketed and prescribed? Meaning should Congress have to be bothered to change how Mifepristone is produced, distributed, or marketed when the agency has the expertise to make those decisions? How the drug prescription can and should change as it is deemed safer with more long term data, but self interested powers are trying to remove that power from the FDA to Congress?
Cause that is what happened. the Court said the FDA did not have the authority to make changes to how the drug was distributed. Now consider the lead time it takes to prepare a drug for market, new usage instructions have to be written and approved, new bottling, new systems set up to prescribe the drug. Every year congress will have to delve into the minutiae of each regulation. That is patently absurd, but what is happening. And that is one drug at one agency, we are talking HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of similar issues.
It is patently absurd to expect a nation to rely solely on the Legislative Branch to interpret every aspect of an issue when those issues are complicated, have unforeseeable outcomes, undefinable uncertainties and are subject to change on a regular basis, both sudden and gradual changes. Flexibility in implementing ANY law is essential to any functioning society.
And again, this is an intent of Project 2025, to make the federal government unworkable.
