To the Editor:
Re “Undoing ‘Chevron’ Would Duly Shift Power Back to Congress,” by David French (column, Jan. 22), and “Undoing ‘Chevron’ Would Unduly Shift Power to the Courts,” by Jody Freeman and Andrew Mergen (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 22), about a case before the Supreme Court:
I agree with Mr. French that it is Congress, rather than the courts or the administrative agencies, that should fill the gaps in any laws that it passes. But Mr. French acknowledges that Congress is dysfunctional and unlikely to act in a timely manner on the many instances when a gap in a law must be filled or an ambiguous term must be defined.
The real question, then, is if Congress fails to act, should the administrative agencies be the second choice or the courts. I am confident that the administrative agencies are the better choice.
Courts are not experts and are not responsive to the electorate. By contrast, administrative agency heads are appointed by the current president, who, the Electoral College notwithstanding, is responsive to the will of the people.
Moreover, unlike judges, administrative agencies have true subject matter expertise, and that was the entire premise of the Chevron decision, as noted by no less a jurist than Justice Antonin Scalia.
It is apparent to me, as a former — and longtime — federal judge, that the administrative agencies are a better choice than the courts to fill the gaps when Congress fails to do its job!
Shira A. Scheindlin
Brooklyn
The writer is a former federal judge in the Southern District of New York.
To the Editor:
Of course it’s Congress that establishes law and policy for all executive agencies, but David French knows full well that Congress has neither the time nor the expertise to dive into the minutiae of rule making. It’s one thing to establish the larger policy goals of the country, quite another to implement that policy through rule making.
Furthermore, Congress has enacted multiple acts to ensure that affected parties have an opportunity to participate in the regulatory process, including the National Environmental Protection Act, the Administrative Procedure Act and more.
Having spent 40 years in fisheries science and management, I can say with near certainty that this fishermen’s lawsuit challenging the Chevron doctrine is part of the fishing industry’s continuing refusal to accept responsibility to fund management of the industry. Absent the kind of information that the fishermen are reluctant to gather and given federal policy to conserve natural resources and prevent overfishing, the regulators’ only option is to severely constrain fishing opportunities. I doubt that is the fishermen’s desired outcome.
I feel that Mr. French “doth protest too much.” His admonition to return congressional authority and recapture democracy is unnecessary. Despite the Chevron decision, Congress retains its authority to make policy and has established careful procedures to ensure democratic rule making with ample public input.
Jack V. Tagart
Olympia, Wash.
To the Editor:
Shift power to Congress or the courts? Neither makes any sense. Every corporation and every nonprofit organization has an “administrative state” that interprets and implements executive and board decisions. Neither 535 legislators nor nine justices have the expertise or time to determine how a law actually works in the real world.
The 535 are too busy posturing for the public and trying to get re-elected. The nine are wrapped up in the intricacies of law and precedent.
Only the administrative agencies have nonpartisan experts who know how the law can get things done as intended. Let Chevron stand.
Ellen Creane
Guilford, Conn.
Why Didn’t They Renounce Trump Sooner?
To the Editor:
Re “What 17 of Trump’s ‘Best People’ Said About Him,” by Sarah Longwell (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 21):
While it’s encouraging that some of Donald Trump’s associates have spoken some truths about him sometimes, many quotes in this piece raise questions.
For example, if Nikki Haley believes what she said in 2021 — that “we shouldn’t have listened to him” and “we can’t let that ever happen again” — why did she indicate that she’d support Mr. Trump in 2024 if he’s the Republican nominee? In fact, she said she’d vote for him even if he were a convicted felon.
If Rex Tillerson thinks Mr. Trump is a “moron” and John Bolton considers him “a danger,” why did they stick with him as long as they did as secretary of state and national security adviser? And why did some of these people not say a critical word about him until after he left office?
As the article says, these Trump associates initially thought he was “worth working for” and then “quickly became alarmed.” But I can’t help wondering why “quickly” often meant at least a year or two — or even why they initially admired him, given that his character was on full display well before he took office.
And while conventional wisdom says they hung around to be the “adults in the room,” I suspect the nation would have been better served if these people had renounced Mr. Trump sooner and more loudly and definitively.
Jeff Burger
Ridgewood, N.J.
Jan. 6 and the Young
To the Editor:
Re “Jan. 6 Cannot Go Down the Memory Hole,” by Jamelle Bouie (column, Jan. 21):
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Bouie’s comments about the infamous Jan. 6 invasion of the Capitol.
One of the most serious problems, I have found in discussions with young people, is that, although my wife and I were glued to our TV and horrified by that ugly event, most young people did not see it live.
They were in school, at work or otherwise engaged. In addition, they didn’t watch the House committee hearings, haven’t read Liz Cheney’s book and are basically not really aware of what happened on that fateful day.
As a result, sad to say, they have no strong feelings about the incursion. It’s just history.
The effects of the violence and Donald Trump’s connection to it are lost on them. It is disappointing and disillusioning.
Harvey Glassman
Boynton Beach, Fla.
Palestinian Life
To the Editor:
Re “A Different Lens on Palestinian Life,” by Adam Rouhana (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 21):
It was a breath of fresh air to read an article depicting Palestinians in their actual, everyday life. Mr. Rouhana writes about his family, and their customs, memories, traditions and moments of joy, just like what one might read about anywhere else in the world. The image he presents could be of any charming town around the Mediterranean Sea.
As he writes, when we hear about Palestine, it is in the context of war. It is almost impossible to identify with the Palestinians in Gaza given what we have been seeing in the news. Terrible death, and horrific destruction. Imagine if America were reduced, in the news, to images of school shootings and desperate emotions.
The photographs allow a rare view into the ordinary everyday life of the author’s Palestinian hometown. Children, groups of girls, old men, young men, get on with life in spite of Israel’s military occupation. We should be presented with more such photographs and stories that give us, in the West, a glimpse into the humanity of the Palestinian people.
Leila Barclay
Cape May, N.J.
The writer is a journalist and founder of al-hakawati.net (The Storyteller), a website devoted to Arab culture and history.