My point was: if there's no law about something I cannot have any expectations from courts, so why there's no law?

The Chevron doctrine, which was recently overturned by the US supreme court, stated that US courts should defer to the regulations of US agencies such as the FCC. As I understand, under Chevron, functionally, the FCC's regulations on telecommunications were law to the courts and the corporations.

It seems to me that it's unreasonable to expect Congress itself to have informed, correct opinions on technically complex topics. There are a limited number of Congressmembers, most of whom are not technically skilled. Delegating regulation to domain experts who remain accountable to Congress seems like a reasonable solution. If Congress disagreed with the FCC's handling of the situation, couldn't they have made a law to overturn the FCC's decision or limit its authority?

Overturning Chevron is a victory for deregulation in general. As I understand, Congress could pass laws to explicitly reinstate the authority that the FCC previously held. However, pro-deregultion factions (I assume mostly Republicans, but I don't really know) now have a chance to block that, and even the supporters of NN have other fish to fry.

Essentially overturning Chevron curtailed the authority of regulatory agencies-- authority which Congress expected them to have, and could have restricted at any time--without going through Congress. Yes, it's the job of the court system to interpret laws. But when they change interpretations which other laws depend on, that's basically changing the laws themselves, isn't it?

> It seems to me that it's unreasonable to expect Congress itself to have informed, correct opinions on technically complex topics.

Actually, that is exactly my expectation of my representatives. They have the resources and connections to find experts and become reasonably versed in these topics so we should expect them to have informed correct opinions on complex topics or they shouldn't be in the job.

> They have the resources and connections to find experts and become reasonably versed in these topics so we should expect them to have informed correct opinions on complex topics or they shouldn't be in the job.

Do they have the time?

There are only so many hours in the day and week, and only so many things that are able to be done in ((sub-)sub-)committees in those hours. Further, legislators have to pass law on every conceivable topic, whereas agencies have a focus (FCC, FAA, FDA, Coast Guard, etc).

And if the situation changes the legislators may have to circle back and pass new bills/regulations and that may take a while given finite resources (time) and other priorities, so various industries may languish in sub-optimal environments due to outdated legislation.

That's the whole point of the agencies (and executive?): delegation to subject matter experts so legislators aren't mired in minutia and can perhaps look at the bigger picture.

In an ideal world, I agree. But Congress is made up of the most electable people, not the most competent people. I would rather they recognize that and delegate rather than trying to make laws about complex topics which can easily backfire, or just taking no action at all.

Okay thank you this answers fully my question. I guess one could make that "Chevron doctrine" into law, a one-time law, then we'd have the issue solved right? So not making laws for every single topic, just enshrine that FCC and others make "laws", then the courts would have to respect that. Of course unless they contradict other laws, thus the courts will still not run out of cases, but at least you'd have some more predictability. But if the whole system relies more on precedent cases instead of explicit laws, you can never reach that predictability (see Roe vs Wade)...

I don't know of any reason why they couldn't make the Chevron Doctrine law. However, I doubt that the Republican congressmembers will let it happen any time soon.

Disclaimer: I'm not very informed, I just did a little Googling and then summarized it as an exercise to try to reinforce my own understanding.

It's really hard to pass a non-budgetary law without a supermajority.

So the solution is to have the judiciary become defacto legislators?

They're doing that right now. That's what defacto means.

So the three powers system is broken? Almost "by design" one could say, although it seemed to have worked for a while, maybe when the level of sophistication was lower (but whose level?). Or maybe there was a time when the actors tried to use the system, not actively seeking tricks to abuse it?

Obviously the problem here is that the judicial branch still works too well, and need to be broken like the rest of the government.

Then and only then, when every branch of government at every level has so much friction that the offices themselves burn to the ground, will we be able to enjoy the freedom that God and the Founding Fathers intended.

If the government that governs least governs best, then the government that governs best doesn't govern at all.

Which would make the founding fathers founding... nothing?

> So the three powers system is broken?

Obviously it's broken, because it's not doing what I wish it would.

Are you sure it's not broken because it's functionally an oligarchy?