On the recordJanuary 11, 2017
To say that this amendment stops judicial activism is stretching things a little bit, I believe. This opens the floodgates to judicial activism, the Goodlatte amendment, so that is why I oppose the amendment. It revises title II of the bill to eliminate agencies' ``gap-filling'' authority when interpreting ambiguous statutes. Judicial review of final agency action is a hallmark of administrative law and is critical to ensuring that agency action does not harm or adversely affect the public. But as the Supreme Court held, in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984, reviewing courts may only invalidate an agency action when it violates a constitutional provision or when an agency exceeds its statutory authority as clearly expressed by Congress. That is a clear rule that has worked fine for America for the last 30 years. Over that time, this seminal decision has required deference to the substantive expertise and political accountability of Federal agencies because, after all, judges don't have political accountability because they are appointed for life. They are not elected by the people. So this legislation is turning around this very fair and balanced court decision and, instead, imposing a new setup, one that invites judges--whom they appoint, by the way. They are the ones who have refused, for the last year, to appoint or to consider the appointment of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice so that they could get a Republican in the White House.…
