Congress has the habit of passing laws often written by lobbyists, and then edited by staff, to meet the needs of campaign financiers. Welcome to politics. What all too often happens in the mix is that words are used which are at best ambiguous and at worst wrong.
Add to this the Chevron ruling by the Supreme Court. Simply it states that no matter how incomprehensible a law may be the Administrative agency may at its sole discretion decide what it means. Furthermore this same Agency may from time to time change the meaning, at will. This was the basis for the power of Administrative Law. Instead of sending it back to Congress for clarity, Chevron allowed un-elected Government employees to decide what they think it should be, the voters be damned.
Now take the recent ruling on masks. Congress mad a sloppy law. The CDC then took the sloppy law and used it to make Administrative policy despite the fact that they did so improperly. Two mistakes, but wait, the CDC relied on science, which in the case of masks really does not exist. Fundamentally we still do not really know how the virus is transmitted. Really. We really do not know but we have lots of academics with demos of how it could work. NOT
Now along comes the NY Times in its classic manner and states:
Should the federal government have the power to address broad public health emergencies?
Last week, a federal judge effectively answered no.
The judge, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, who serves on a Federal District Court in Florida and was appointed by former President Donald Trump, issued a nationwide injunction blocking the government’s mask mandate for planes, trains, buses and other forms of public transportation. No matter how you feel now about masks, you should be alarmed by her decision. Judge Mizelle’s ruling could prevent the federal government from effectively and nimbly responding to future pandemics. And long after this pandemic has faded, her approach and rationale could undermine the federal government’s authority to confront other big problems, from occupational health and safety to climate change.
The necessary reference to Trump or Fox News immediately lets the reader know this is pure political palaver. The Judge has a very valid point. I argued this 30 years ago against several FCC rulings. The FCC took actions for which the law was at best vague. This problem occurs again and again. Thankfully this Judge deals with facts and reality and may prevent the hidden Government, namely Administrative Law, from prevailing.
Posts
