Brett Kavanaugh's latest opinion should terrify Democrats.

[elleng]

*“Nondelegation” is the idea that the Constitution imposes limits — potentially very strict limits — on Congress’s power to give regulatory authority to federal agencies.

Under current law, “a statutory delegation is constitutional as long as Congress ‘lay[s] down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.’” That is, Congress has broad authority to delegate power to federal agencies so long as it explains with sufficient clarity what the agency is supposed to accomplish with its power.

In Gundy, however, Gorsuch sharply criticized this long-standing rule and called for the Court to revive the Nondelegation Doctrine.

In that opinion, Gorsuch suggested that current law risks giving agencies “unbounded policy choices.” His explanation of what new limits he would impose on federal agencies is vague and it’s hard to find a clear legal rule in the opinion. Nevertheless, Gorsuch writes that a federal law permitting agencies to regulate must be “‘sufficiently definite and precise to enable Congress, the courts, and the public to ascertain’ whether Congress’s guidance has been followed.”

As a practical matter, when the Supreme Court hands down such a vague and open-ended legal standard, it is effectively shifting power to the judiciary. What does it mean for a statute to be “sufficiently definite and precise” that people can “ascertain whether Congress’s guidance has been followed”? I honestly have no idea. But, as a practical matter, the answer to this question will be decided by the Supreme Court’s Republican majority whenever it is confronted with an agency regulation.'>>>

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/26/20981758/brett-kavanaughs-terrify-democrats-supreme-court-gundy-paul

[leftieNanner]

1. You reference Kavanaugh in the title

But the article mentions Gorsuch. ???

[elleng]

2. 'Kavanaugh reads Gorsuch's opinion to state that Congress may not allow

an “agency to exercise regulatory authority over a major policy question of great economic and political importance.” Again, this standard is vague and would effectively give the Supreme Court broad authority to veto regulations that its Republican majority dislikes. Kavanaugh’s Paul opinion also signals that he would shrink agency power to only include “less-major or fill-up-the-details decisions.”'

[BigDemVoter]

3. I am NOT joking about this.

When we get Pussy Grabber out of the WH and get it COMPLETELY disinfected, we THEN need to 'disinfect' the judiciary with all of the unlawful choices Pussy Grabber made. That means that EVERY single one of them should be reversed. This "presidency" has been a sham, gained by unlawful means. Furthermore, subtracting the taint of Pussy Grabber himself, Brett Kavenaugh is a lying, drunk, rapist frat-boy who, at a bare minimum, should be dragged before a Grand Jury. . .

Oh no. . . These fuckers have life-time appointments. NOTHING they say. . . NOTHING, NOTHING they would do would surprise me at this point.

And the repig party? I was anti-repig when the repigs weren't such swine