The recent Supreme Court decision taking away the power of administrative law judges seems to have everyone on both sides of the traditional political aisle screaming.

Are they really that upset and fearful or is it an act?

This term, the SCOTUS took up two cases brought by the fishing industry: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. And as a result reopened Chevron v. NRDC. And thereby seem to have opened a huge can of worms.

As lovers of liberty, we think our response to a blow like this to the administrative state would be simple: “Rejoice and be glad!”

Government – being ruled by elected rulers who lord it over us – is bad enough. But when most of those who lord it over us are unelected bureaucrats who have no real understanding of reality? It is far, far worse.

But it seems our viewpoint is not shared!

Here are two examples: The Nation claims that we have just seen the biggest power grab by the Judicial Branch since 1803. That was when (in Marbury v. Madison) the Nazgul claimed the power to determine if something was unconstitutional or not. A power not explicitly stated in the federal Constitution but not seriously challenged in 221 years. The Verge provides a very long list of all the ways that the Nazgul have destroyed the “administrative state” and how that destroys everyone’s rights and democracy.

The Nation proclaims this decision is unconstitutional! “In the biggest judicial power grab since 1803, the Supreme Court today overruled Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 case that instructed the judiciary to defer to the president and the president’s experts in executive agencies when determining how best to enforce laws passed by Congress. In so doing, the court gave itself nearly unlimited power over the administrative state and its regulatory agencies. … The US Constitution, flawed though it is, has already answered the question of who gets to decide how to enforce our laws. The Constitution says, quite clearly, that Congress passes laws and the president enforces them. The Supreme Court, constitutionally speaking, has no role in determining whether Congress was right to pass the law, or if the executive branch is right to enforce it, or how presidents should use the authority granted to them by Congress. … For an unelected panel of judges to come in, above the agencies, and tell them how the president is allowed to enforce laws, is a perversion of the constitutional order and separation of powers—and a repudiation of democracy itself.”

From the Verge: “Since the New Deal era, the bulk of the functioning US government is the administrative state — think the acronym soup of agencies like the EPA, FCC, FTC, FDA, and so on. Even when Capitol Hill is not mired in deep dysfunction, the speed at which Congress and the courts operate no longer seems suitable for modern life. Both industry and ordinary people look to the administrative state, rather than legislators, for an immediate answer to their problems. And since 1984, the administrative state largely ran on one Supreme Court precedent: Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).“

Bad as democracy is, I am not sure how keeping unelected bureaucrats (who are really unaccountable to the people – even through Congress) in power writing regulations and hauling us up in front of their house-courts and play-judges is destroying “democracy.” Although there is (usually) some procedure for “public comment” on the hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and regulation, there is no democracy involved. We do not get even a pretend-election to vote on whether we want Section 30.5.a.23.421(b)(1) of the US Code to limit how big our soda cups can be and whether the straw is paper or plastic. Even if it is supposed to be for our own good and to save the planet.

But the very idea that the Nazgul have reined in the bureaucrats and their administrative laws (regulations and rules and guidelines and “statements of basis” and the rest) even a little bit? That scares the media and the special interest groups and the Gaia-lovers and change agents and hoplophobes and the rest to the core of their shriveled little hearts and claimed-to-be-non-existent souls. Why, BATFE might not be able to declare that some newly-invented gun accessory is banned! The Department of Education might not be able to drag a parent to a bogus and kangaroo court for complaining that he was not notified that his little girl was surgically altered to be a fake boy with elf-ears and a furry tail, simply by reinterpreting some law to their own choosing. We might be able to object to Uncle Joe signing a piece of paper to close down every mine in 100,000 square miles because some grad student discovered a previously unknown species of gnat.

Chaos! Anarchy! Minorities and immigrants and cross-dressers might be offended! Bureaucrats might not be able to hire their crippled, senie Aunt Susie to work for their agency holding the door open for people for $100,000 a year (with 10% increases each year)!

Do we here at TPOL really think that the SCOTUS wants to, and has been able to dismantle the rule of the elite by administrative government and executive fiat?

Of course not. For one thing, the judges (including the 9 Nazgul) are part of that elite, and they benefit hugely from having us under the thumb of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. Especially the armed thugs.

But maybe it will give us a bit more of a chance to roll back a few of the limitations on our liberty. Or to put it bluntly, knock off one or two of the chains we are shackled with. Maybe.