The Hamburger Court

[dan_bgblue]

Why not, though, the “Hamburger Court”? This would be after the visionary law professor Philip Hamburger of Columbia University. He, so far as we’re aware, has never sat on any bench. Yet, in the closing weeks of this Supreme Court term, he is coming into view as potentially having a historic impact on American law. He is pressing his cause to rein in the runaway administrative state via not only his scholarly work but his founding, in 2017, of a new civil rights organization.

Linkage (https://www.nysun.com/editorials/the-hamburger-court/91560/)

[CitizenBBN]

I'm all for such a movement. The need to reverse this erosion of our rights cannot be overstated.

A big part of the problem is that now the group trying to reign in those rights historically was the voice of civil liberties.

This paragraph says a lot:

In Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (http://link.mediaoutreach.meltwater.com/ls/click?upn=jDs0ztXrdZv1O-2BufaSOC88KPmfQYh-2BpaHMyxUa783keUpbtEzQ4jhq-2BtWMWHeau3A0rgQKclc-2FnZW-2BhcaBGtnmQZuXiOctxnM5WBxlHpvjpAZWKRxJzJgHI1GQtUNe QJ4w3aW2gL9kT0z3OQOYjjLMkETLnZWB-2FenJlhEM5cAoRaneo6BZFiuglTMln15KPW6ant_vDDMHRDJG1 TgOfAiah9dlE7W9UewGyfnKWw7aW2TZwGx26hoZMJ2WCLN8uAD n2KiysYsn-2BteKdzRBW-2FwAcA291lEFTizXdkVcyDVbon2zpMkaS5NfgQ-2BXuknkkRanUBhnjHsoyVGuoYd-2FLpBfl-2B86SDDKcNxPsN1bVkm6k3bXiJI0vBCtnDIM0pP7SDQXQTMKAO IE7Lqe9GGUNwxyj8dym8DbbsX2rSoSMQoH4kXMBLe8squLGJs-2FA0953bRMMZpr5gqLTk7vzXdBZt2nfBptL9nuRcuDZfQzpZxD x8f5WMFLGk-2B384SCpq5IOSawI6a6ebpdkOkeIMLv-2BEgQag-2BeMBJx27QVYjoY-2FyYGUxauiZcjwuoKgT1odLZYur-2F72QYD1vcJasbvXVuZCNqlkAt0g-3D-3D), NCLA says, the Alliance filed three separate amicus briefs at various stages against a California law that would have forced not-for-profits to disclose their key donors. The Supreme Court stopped California colder than a mackerel, vindicating not only NCLA’s points but also the NAACP, which six decades ago won at the Supreme Court an early donor protection case against Alabama.

Sixty years ago it was "liberal" (at that time) groups like the NAACP that needed protection of civil liberties and from governments that wished to use their power against the rights of the people. SCOTUS rightly upheld that civil right.

Now those very groups that 60 years ago sought that protection are the groups that want to curtail those rights.

Why?

B/c they feel like they have the advantage in numbers now, will largely control the governnment, and can now implement their agenda, and can use the power of the state to squash dissent.

They apparently never believed in civil liberties at all, as they are now quite happy to throw them out the window. From calls to end the filibuster to packing the court, to a near endless array of calls for limiting the rights of the individual like making "hate speech" illegal, and not to mention draconian proposals like the Green New Deal, the Left is now in the business of using the state to force silence and compliance in ways old school conservatives of prior generations would never have thought was possible.

[CitizenBBN]

I also agree with this point:

“Most Americans do not realize,” the New Civil Liberties Alliance notes on its Web site, “that Congress today enacts fewer than one hundred statutes per year, handing over the task of legislating to federal administrative agencies.” It reckons that the Administrative State “now creates, enforces and adjudicates hundreds of thousands of regulations governing daily activities in our lives.”


There should be NO administrative regulations in this country. Either Congress passes a LAW, or there is no law. Congress has created this massive bureaucracy by constantly saying "to be implemented by xxx agency" and then going back to their lobbyist paid for lunch.

If the volume of things they want to regulate is too big for them to manage, too bad. I guess they just don't get to regulate as much and will need to prioritize.

[dan_bgblue]

Congress can not work out consensus to enact much of anything, so rather than just stagnate they ask the agencies to pass regulations to get what they want done.

Pretty damn pitiful that there is an out like this to allow them to abrogate their elected responsibilities,

[suncat05]

Congress can not work out consensus to enact much of anything, so rather than just stagnate they ask the agencies to pass regulations to get what they want done.

Pretty damn pitiful that there is an out like this to allow them to abrogate their elected responsibilities,

Not only that, but there needs to be a way to make these bungholes write stand-alone legislation wherein only one bill at a time is presented to the President for his signature instead of adding in all of these extra amendments to these bills. But that's just me thinking out loud here.
These no good lousy criminal azz crooked corrupt politicians are leading us down the Road to Perdition.

[KeithKSR]

Congress can not work out consensus to enact much of anything, so rather than just stagnate they ask the agencies to pass regulations to get what they want done.

Pretty damn pitiful that there is an out like this to allow them to abrogate their elected responsibilities,

It wasn’t intended for Congress to easily pass legislation. Look at what would be happening now without the filibuster, when the Senate is split 50-50 and has the veep vote to pass goofy stuff that makes it out of the House with the slimmest of votes.