765
Clarence Thomas takes aim at a new target: Eliminating OSHA
(www.businessinsider.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
765 points (99.1% liked)
News
23659 readers
3180 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
TLDR: It may be unconstitutional in his opinion because of the Non Delegation Doctrine stemming from:
Basically Congress can't just go and let the Executive branch do their job. The Executive can't make new laws only enforce the existing ones.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine
This is my rub with Clarence in general. On paper I agree with a very hardline reading of the constitution cause what else is it there for. We're far too allergic to making constitutional amendments and laws and have built up a house of cards that gets toppled every time the administration changes.
However, practically speaking, there's too many actual lives depending on supreme court decisions and delegated regulations to wait for congress to do something about it (if they aren't stalled outright by lobbying and party opposition). If the overturning of such decisions is meant to light a fire under the ass of the legislative branch, it operates much too slowly to protect the vulnerable people who suffer in the interim. Delegation is the only reason we have a (relatively) safe and clean place to live.
There needs to be a statute of limitations on how long the Supreme Court can reverse things. They can’t change things 40 years after the fact when entire agencies have been built and society has restructured around the previous ruling.
The problem with that is Korematsu v. US was decided in 1944 and is technically still the law as no subsequent cases have come up to overturn it.
Like I said elsewhere, just make congress review use of delegated authority regularly and rubberstamp it if the agency is acting reasonably, otherwise they just give new directives wherever they deem fit.
They might even let agencies notify select members of congress when changing any notable rules so they can decide if they want to call a legislative session or just OK it.
That respects the division of powers in the constitution while still letting regulatory agencies do their jobs
https://slrpnk.net/comment/9618565
The problem is that congress doesn't do anything quickly (unless it's giving themselves a raise). That's the whole reason delegation was needed, because they're so slow to actually pass specific laws. Previously, the rule was that any ambiguity in the law could be interpreted as needed by the relevant agency. That way the law can be "companies need to ensure a certain level of safety for workers" and OSHA with their panel of experts can figure out the details of what precautions are needed where. Even if a rubber stamp is all that would be needed, they have a huge backlog of regulations to get through and a lot of companies that will fight tooth and nail to save a bit of money on safety equipment. If the SCOTUS takes such a case and rules against OSHA's authority, you best believe there will be blood on their hands.
That's why I said only notable changes should need preemptive review (if any), everything else that's standard procedure would just be documented and OK'd after
I agree it would have very bad consequences if the agency would get blocked entirely from acting
That's great for a future where we have all of this sorted out, but it doesn't help in the interim. It's not like corporations will sit patiently while congress gets this figured out, they're going to test the authority of OSHA and flood the courts with lawsuits to argue over every particular, doing more or less whatever they want in the meantime. Frankly I don't believe congress can rubber stamp anywhere quick enough to protect the policies we already have in place.
The two party system has resulted in grid lock on anything pf actual value like codifying in law the things the SCOTUS has been rolling back. We’ve rested on our laurels for it to all be undone.
Is he sure he wants that if Trump gets into power?
He's been writing about it long before 2016 so I'd imagine so.
Yeah, but that was before Project 2025.
He usually cares about what the people who bribe him want and they want Project 2025.
We do have a problem with executive power creep so like there's a world where I'm on board for non-delegation but there just is a reality that some questions are too small, detailed, and nuanced to expect a new bill out of Congress each time.
So like setting new tariffs, should be a congressional action and it was improperly delegated. Determining whether a new ladder is safe for workers, can be delegated.