Of course expertise will still influence the application of law and policy. The same people will still write the regulations, serve as expert witnesses in trials, and write amicus briefs. The thing that has changed is that the executive branch's preferred interpretation of laws passed by the legislative branch will no longer be granted deference by the judicial branch. They will be on a level playing field with other parties when it comes to putting forth proposed interpretations of laws.
The executive is supposed to represent the public interest, opposed to the interests wealthy enough to bring a lawsuit. We seem to have given up on that.
Aren't all of the branches of government supposed to represent the public interest? What makes the executive uniquely qualified to do so? I would think that there are few people who would say that the past two administrations have both represented the public interest. People tend to think that their favored administration was serving the public interest, and the disfavored one was tearing down the progress of his predecessor.
This assumes the court can even hear cases in a reasonable amount of time.
An overloaded court system means that defendants are put at a disadvantage and can likely be strong-armed into an agreement that is unfavorable. At least with agencies, companies knew where they stood, after all, most companies probably have a few former agents on staff.
Now it's, better hope you don't lose an injunction and you get a judge capable of understanding the technical reasons why your company should be allowed to operate in that capacity.
I don't think this is the pro-business win that conservatives claim it is. It just changes the rule of the game in ways that I think favor the government. If an agency gets an injunction, then continues to press for continuance based on the fact that they don't have the resources right now, and a judge buys it, then the company end up in judicial purgatory.
>This assumes the court can even hear cases in a reasonable amount of time.
If it's a bandwidth issue, reducing the number of extra-judicial bureaucrats and upping the number of judiciary is pretty straightforward. Seems like a pretty simple rebalancing issue.
>Now it's, better hope you don't lose an injunction and you get a judge capable of understanding the technical reasons
Why would experts (like those that were informing executive agencies on their payroll) not be called here?
The judiciary depends on Congress for its funding, and is perennially underfunded. Arguably this suits the legislative branch because a clogged judicial pipeline encourages people to pursue legislative relief.
