Defending ‘Democracy’ and the Administrative State is Impossible
The Battle Against Bureaucracy: Fishermen Fight for Freedom
Imagine this: the government barges into your business and demands that you pay the salaries of the very regulators who hold power over you. If you refuse, your livelihood will be destroyed. You have no say in the matter because there is no law supporting this demand. It was concocted by bureaucrats in Washington D.C. and approved by a political appointee.
This is the essence of the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, where New England fishermen are taking on Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo. This landmark case has the potential to weaken or even end the controversial Chevron deference, a doctrine that has given the administrative state sweeping control over the American economy. It’s like a modern-day version of “taxation without representation.”
However, during the Supreme Court oral arguments in the Raimondo case, the focus of the three liberal judges was not on the constitutionality of Chevron deference, but rather on the perceived problems of stripping government experts of their power. Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post summarizes their arguments:
“But the fundamental question was clear: Who decides? From the liberal point of view: unelected judges or regulators with expertise and accountability? From the conservative vantage point: judges constitutionally empowered to say what the law is or unelected bureaucrats?”
It’s hard to fathom how any judge who swore to uphold the Constitution could side with the “liberal point of view.” Justices are intentionally unelected. It’s not a trick; it’s their purpose. Their duty is to interpret the constitutionality of laws and their implementation. Failing to do so would be a dereliction of duty. Yet, the left treats the Supreme Court as if it were an autocratic Star Chamber for simply doing its job.
On the other hand, the Constitution does not grant unelected bureaucrats the authority to make laws. The executive branch’s role is to execute laws as written. Initially, conservatives supported Chevron as a means to curb judicial activism. However, the broad discretion given to agencies in making “reasonable” decisions when the law is ambiguous has been abused. This has led to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency regulating every puddle and molecule of carbon dioxide.
Furthermore, the notion that government regulators possess unparalleled expertise and accountability is a myth. Democrats often claim a monopoly on apolitical policy expertise, but there are always significant disagreements over regulatory policies. This is why politics exists, and why Democrats seek to bypass Congress and debate.
Moreover, the idea that government regulators are the best and brightest, chosen based on merit, is complete nonsense. Anyone who has paid attention to the government knows this. This is especially true for political appointees, whose most valuable skills are navigating bureaucracies and avoiding risks.
Furthermore, bureaucrats lack the kind of accountability that most people would recognize. When was the last time an agency faced consequences for failed policies? When was the last time the administrative state was reined in? How many regulators or appointees are ever fired? If you performed as poorly as Alejandro Mayorkas, you would be unemployed forever.
Even if regulators were exceptionally talented and hardworking, they would still have no right to create laws out of thin air.
Yet, the most vocal defenders of American “democracy” believe that Chevron deference abuses are essential for governance. Reading left-wing commentary on the topic, one might think that federal agencies did not exist before 1984.
The outcry over the potential demise of Chevron deference is just another example of the left’s abandonment of any limiting principle. It’s all about the consequences, all the time. Anything Democrats dislike is seen as an attack on “democracy.” When the court returns the abortion issue, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, to the voters, every leftist in the country claims that “democracy” is under threat. When the same court threatens to curb unelected technocrats from doing as they please, democracy is once again in danger. It doesn’t even make sense.
What Chevron deference does is incentivize Congress to write vague laws and allows presidents to abuse their power. It creates instability as each administration interprets the law according to its own preferences. It poses a threat to the separation of powers. It was a colossal mistake. And unlike most of the left’s current hysteria, it genuinely endangers “democracy.”
How does the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo highlight the issue of bureaucrats being appointed through political connections rather than expertise and accountability?
Nonsense. Many bureaucrats are appointed through political connections and are driven by their own agendas rather than expertise and accountability. The case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo highlights this issue, as fishermen are being forced to pay the salaries of regulators who have power over them, without any legal basis for this demand.
The Raimondo case has brought the controversial Chevron deference doctrine into the spotlight. This doctrine has granted the administrative state extensive control over the American economy, but its constitutionality is being questioned. The outcome of this case could potentially weaken or even end the deference given to administrative agencies.
However, it is concerning that during the Supreme Court oral arguments, the liberal judges seemed more focused on preserving the power of government experts rather than upholding the Constitution. They posed the question of who should have the authority to decide - unelected judges or regulators with expertise and accountability. This viewpoint disregards the fundamental role of the judiciary in interpreting the law and ensuring its constitutionality.
It is crucial to understand that unelected bureaucrats do not have the authority to make laws. Their role is to execute laws as written by Congress. While the idea behind the Chevron doctrine was initially to curb judicial activism, it has been misused, allowing agencies to make arbitrary decisions when the law is ambiguous. This has led to excessive regulation by agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, undermining the principles of limited government and individual liberty.
The notion that government regulators possess unmatched expertise and accountability is a fallacy perpetuated by Democrats. The reality is that regulatory policies often invite significant disagreements, and it is through political debate and oversight that these policies should be shaped. Bypassing Congress and allowing unelected bureaucrats to make important decisions is undemocratic and undermines the checks and balances of our system.
In conclusion, the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo sheds light on the battle against bureaucracy that fishermen and many other industries face. The outcome of this case has the potential to challenge the overreaching power of administrative agencies and redefine the balance between unelected bureaucrats and the judiciary. It is crucial that the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution and ensures that governmental power remains in check, protecting the rights and freedoms of American citizens.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...