Note: Your email provider may truncate this post due to its length. You can read it in full on my Substack page. The Republican party, with the assistance of the Federalist Society, has crafted a cheat code to block any Biden administration policy they disagree with—and it works more often than not. All that’s needed is a cadre of willing Attorneys General, a bench of friendly judges, and a Supreme Court ready to create new legal doctrines out of thin air to reach the party’s desired outcome. The Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) has already taken care of the first step by
“Because the Final Rule is a matter of both vast economic and political significance, the Court finds the enactment of this rule involves a major question pursuant to the major questions doctrine,” Doughty wrote. “Therefore, Congress must have given “clear statutory authorization” to the applicable agency. The Court finds that Congress did not give clear statutory authorization to this agency.”
The overarching intent of this and similar language from other Republican president appointed federal judges, used in decisions striking down or in issuance of an injunction against a regulation or guideline written by a federal agency charged under a federal law with implementation of said law is to effectively neuter the ability of Congress to pass such legislation and for executive branch agencies to write regulations to enforce such regulations.
Why? Because to please the “offended” obstructionists and narrow minded members of an opposing political party, Congress would have to greatly lengthen and write in minutiae detail every proposed act or bill that implements a policy for public good. With the ability to amend, attach riders, end debate, filibuster, hijack committee hearings, grandstand, and refuse initial committee assignment to any proposed legislation, members of Congress, the vast majority of whom do not process the technical knowledge to write such in-depth wordy legislation, can easily stall and kill almost any proposal.
Thus the implementation of “small government” by neutering government’s ability to do the job for which they were elected.
Further, such specifically written wordy legislation can, to please the oppressive obstructionists, only be written as a “snapshot in time”, because all future variations of the condition or situation for which the legislation is written would be deemed non-covered.
As for “arbitrary and capricious”, it’s in the eye of the beholder.
“Because the Final Rule is a matter of both vast economic and political significance, the Court finds the enactment of this rule involves a major question pursuant to the major questions doctrine,” Doughty wrote. “Therefore, Congress must have given “clear statutory authorization” to the applicable agency. The Court finds that Congress did not give clear statutory authorization to this agency.”
The overarching intent of this and similar language from other Republican president appointed federal judges, used in decisions striking down or in issuance of an injunction against a regulation or guideline written by a federal agency charged under a federal law with implementation of said law is to effectively neuter the ability of Congress to pass such legislation and for executive branch agencies to write regulations to enforce such regulations.
Why? Because to please the “offended” obstructionists and narrow minded members of an opposing political party, Congress would have to greatly lengthen and write in minutiae detail every proposed act or bill that implements a policy for public good. With the ability to amend, attach riders, end debate, filibuster, hijack committee hearings, grandstand, and refuse initial committee assignment to any proposed legislation, members of Congress, the vast majority of whom do not process the technical knowledge to write such in-depth wordy legislation, can easily stall and kill almost any proposal.
Thus the implementation of “small government” by neutering government’s ability to do the job for which they were elected.
Further, such specifically written wordy legislation can, to please the oppressive obstructionists, only be written as a “snapshot in time”, because all future variations of the condition or situation for which the legislation is written would be deemed non-covered.
As for “arbitrary and capricious”, it’s in the eye of the beholder.