Originally published at: Supreme Court Tees Up Chance To Take Anti-Agency Fight To New Frontier - TPM – Talking Points Memo
The Supreme Court agreed to take up a case Friday (FCC v. Consumers’ Research) in which an advocacy group describing itself as an adversary to “woke” corporations wants the right-wing justices to escalate their hostility to federal agencies. The group, Consumers’ Research, is challenging the system by which the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ensures universal…
1 Like
the idea that Congress can’t outsource any legislating to the executive branch
But billionaire special interests can spend without limits or oversight to insource all the legislation they want through an executive branch having unlimited power, since, by definition, it would all be at the discretion of the immune king.
I mean, the Chief Executive. With full pardon power.
14 Likes
Hmm if the rural areas got no phone or internet would it be safe to go back Twitter? s/
Does Consumer’s Research want the FFC to handle this as an agency?
2 Likes
Rural Electrification and similar programs brought much of rural America into the 20th century. Without (taxpayer-funded) government support, reliable electrical and telephone service (and, later, cable television and internet) might not have reached some of those areas.
So is providing those services ‘woke’? If ‘woke’ is ‘enlightened’ then the answer is yes.
6 Likes
It is SOCIALISM!!! Damn Commies want me to have power, water and indoor toilets! What happened to FREEDOM?
4 Likes
Nice cat. It would be a shame if something happened to it.
1 Like
Honestly, we’d be in a lot better shape if a lot of these rural areas didn’t have access to cable TV and the internet, so I’m kind of torn.
10 Likes
“The 5th Circuit found that the fund setup violated the nondelegation “doctrine,” the idea that Congress can’t outsource any legislating to the executive branch. The theory has been dormant since the 1930s, but conservatives have been exhorting the right-wing majority to revive it in recent agency challenges.”
This case may be decided on narrow grounds if it isn’t simply declared moot. But I’m puzzled about the larger issue. On the one hand, the right wing wants to take away much of the authority of federal agencies to implement legislation because Congress cannot outsource legislating to the executive branch (separation of powers, I assume). There are so many problems there that, where to begin? First, Congress alone does not make laws (unless it overrides a presidential veto) – the president’s signature is also necessary. (Cf. the V-P’s roll in breaking ties in the Senate.) Second, what in the Constitution forbids Congress to authorize federal agencies to make determinations and regulations that Congress is not in a position (lacks the expertise) to spell out? Making those determinatons and regulations would seem to fall under the executive branch’s duty of faithfully executing the law. If Congress thinks an agency is not doing so faithfully or properly, it can make a new law. If individuals or corporate entities think an agency is not doing so, it can go to court.
On the other hand, if SCOTUS takes advantage of this case to rule broadly and to dismantle or restrict the so-called administrative state, what powers will be left to Trump’s cabinet? The court challenges faced by RFKJ or Linda McMahon or Pete Hegseth will stymie them maybe?
The incohate beginnings of some thoughts.
3 Likes
Wow! WaPo goes all Trumpy overnight. Really: life in red states is so much better!
We now see a parade of Claremont Institute "thinkers’ bringing the crazy into public policy. Forget Josh Hawley or Tom Cotton, when you’ve got Mary Harrington. The thing is that the Supreme Court, which is so invested in abortion and other privacy protections, has refrained for decades on addressing limits on procreation. Indeed, Musk and Thiel are "pronatalists", a sort of arms race with sperm and uteri. The idea was that market forces would make having kids unaffordable, and it has worked in all advanced economies. However, in societies without government safety nets, children and grandchildren are your pension plan. The US is currently rushing to a dynamic seen in religious cults, which are often pronatalist, as secular policy. Social safety nets will be pulled back on a large swathe of the population, including their procreation options. Those on the Trump lifeboat (life yacht?) will be encouraged to breed for the stars. Dobbs intentionally reduced access to abortion services in a manner that has been disproportionately felt by poor, non-white populations, exacerbating health risks and inequities. In 1927, SCOTUS did enter eugenics territory with Buck v. Bell decision, a ruling that ultimately resulted in 70,000 forced sterilizations. At that time, the US population was about a third of its current level.
Coincidentally, it was the time James Truslow Adams was coining the term “The American Dream”. Adams was no slouch, he knew his audience.. My worry is that over the next year we will see the release of “American Dream 2.0” in a moment we have a compliant SCOTUS to let it happen.
Won’t this mess up the plans of the new FCC chair to remove all dissent?