Hello There, Guest! Registered users see far less ads! Register today and join our virtual tailgate. (Login — Register)

Post Reply 
Unelected Administrative Law Judges on the back foot
Author Message
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,952
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 1266
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Grayson Highlands
Post: #21
RE: Unelected Administrative Law Judges on the back foot
(05-23-2024 02:29 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  
(05-22-2024 10:44 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(05-22-2024 05:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, federal cases should be handled by federal judges, meaning judges appointed by the president with the consent of the senate. Any court that is part of a federal arm that doesn't have that characteristic is illegitimate, IMO.



That would wipe out ALJ's in every Department, as well as all U.S. bankruptcy judges, Federal Magistrates nationwide, all Federal judges in U.S. Territories and would accomplish nothing but further clog an already jammed up Federal Court system.

It also ignores Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution:

"Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

But these ALJs were not created by Congress, they were created by unelected Bureaucrats. Congress can create all the ALJs they want. In fact, the entire case could come down to that. Is a federal agency created and funded by congress allowed to then, all on its own, go out and create a shadow system of federal judges with 10x as many "judges" as we have Federal Judges, or does Congress have to create these Judgeships directly? I think it will make for a spirited argument.

The ironic thing is that there's no need to call them "judges" at all. Call them "arbitrators" or perhaps "adjudicators". Oh, wait, arbitrators don't normally go out all on their own and try to enforce a rogue agenda on Dartmouth, or Space X, etc etc, do they? Hmmmm.

If Congress delegated that power and authority to the agencies, then they are in fact Article I judges created by Congress.
05-24-2024 09:36 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #22
RE: Unelected Administrative Law Judges on the back foot
My proposed changes to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), from 40 years of practicing administrative law:

1) All new rulemaking subject to congressional approval, automatically for rules having an economic impact in excess of some number (say, $10B over five years), and otherwise upon petition by 20% of either or both houses of congress.

2) All agencies, and all rules issued by them, subject to sunset review every ten years.

3) Replace captive ALJs who report ultimately to the executive director of each agency with Article III administrative law courts in every federal jurisdictional district, with route of appeal through the fedral district courts and appellate courts in and for the district/circuit where the cause of action accrued.
(This post was last modified: 05-24-2024 09:54 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
05-24-2024 09:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CitrusUCF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,939
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 367
I Root For: UCF/Tulsa
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Unelected Administrative Law Judges on the back foot
(05-24-2024 09:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My proposed changes to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), from 40 years of practicing administrative law:

1) All new rulemaking subject to congressional approval, automatically for rules having an economic impact in excess of some number (say, $10B over five years), and otherwise upon petition by 20% of either or both houses of congress.

2) All agencies, and all rules issued by them, subject to sunset review every ten years.

3) Replace captive ALJs who report ultimately to the executive director of each agency with Article III administrative law courts in every federal jurisdictional district, with route of appeal through the fedral district courts and appellate courts in and for the district/circuit where the cause of action accrued.

#2 and #3 are ideas worth considering, though reviewing every rule after 10 years is going to significantly increase the administrative burden on agencies.

#1 is unnecessary and unworkable - Congress already has the authority to overturn a rule through the Congressional Review Act. Turning it into an active approval of every rule, if demanded by 20% of Congress, will slow the executive branch to a halt. There is a reason that Administrative Law exists in the first place - that the people executing the law are needed to fill in the specifics that Congress lacks the knowledge or other ability to properly determine.
05-31-2024 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #24
RE: Unelected Administrative Law Judges on the back foot
(05-31-2024 12:17 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Turning it into an active approval of every rule, if demanded by 20% of Congress, will slow the executive branch to a halt.

Which is a feature, not a bug.
05-31-2024 12:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CitrusUCF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,939
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 367
I Root For: UCF/Tulsa
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Unelected Administrative Law Judges on the back foot
(05-31-2024 12:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-31-2024 12:17 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Turning it into an active approval of every rule, if demanded by 20% of Congress, will slow the executive branch to a halt.

Which is a feature, not a bug.

So the Executive Branch shouldn’t be able to execute the laws?
05-31-2024 09:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #26
RE: Unelected Administrative Law Judges on the back foot
(05-31-2024 09:38 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(05-31-2024 12:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-31-2024 12:17 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Turning it into an active approval of every rule, if demanded by 20% of Congress, will slow the executive branch to a halt.
Which is a feature, not a bug.
So the Executive Branch shouldn’t be able to execute the laws?

Not without some check on unfettered power.
06-01-2024 07:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CitrusUCF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,939
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 367
I Root For: UCF/Tulsa
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Unelected Administrative Law Judges on the back foot
(06-01-2024 07:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-31-2024 09:38 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(05-31-2024 12:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-31-2024 12:17 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Turning it into an active approval of every rule, if demanded by 20% of Congress, will slow the executive branch to a halt.
Which is a feature, not a bug.
So the Executive Branch shouldn’t be able to execute the laws?

Not without some check on unfettered power.

You didn't say unfettered power - you supported grinding it to a halt. The CRA is already the check on unfettered power.
06-03-2024 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 82,008
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3446
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #28
RE: Unelected Administrative Law Judges on the back foot
(06-03-2024 12:54 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  You didn't say unfettered power - you supported grinding it to a halt.

No, I did not. That is your micharacterization of my wor

Quote:The CRA is already the check on unfettered power.

Nope. Chevron essentially mandates unfettered power.
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2024 01:04 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
06-03-2024 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread:


Copyright © 2002-2026 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group.