Chevron deference's main purpose is to free Congress from writing exhaustive laws. If the executive branch does something Congress doesn't like, they can change the law and make it more specific. Of course Congress does almost nothing, so when you say it has to take legislative action to regulate something, what you're effectively doing is deregulating it.

This decision follows more from the Court where they pick and choose what they doom in this way based on their personal politics, contrary to precedent and reliance interests.

We shouldn't think too hard about what this Court does; it's a nakedly ideological power grab that's the endgame of a generation long effort by Conservatives to control the US through the court as they slide further and further into permanent minority status. Future generations will look back on this era as one of infamy.

I’m not a fan of the current Court, but stare decisis has never been binding. Landmark rulings are landmarks because the create or break precedent. Courts have been doing that since there were courts.

To me, it seems clear that the "administrative state" is overseen by the president, who can overrule them and fire individual people, and the president is elected by the people every four years, and that makes the executive branch more democratically responsible than the supreme court, which is not elected by the people, and who serve for life with no democratic accountability.

But I'm open to hearing your argument for how the supreme court is more democratically responsible than the offices of the executive branch! Maybe we don't mean the same thing by "democratically responsible".

It's not honest, it's not nice, and it's against the site guidelines.