Regardless of where you are on the political spectrum, this is going to cause a practical mess just like the Dobbs decision, except Chevron deference impacts every area of federal regulation.
In my career I have never seen messy refactorings go well. They are carefully planned and executed piece of by piece instead of throwing everything out of the window.
It's not going to be feasible to run the country this way. So something has to give, either the agencies tell SCOTUS to fuck off, agencies stop operating, or they file suit for every little thing and clog up the already overworked justice system (which I guess means that we end up with behind closed doors mediation).
Since the President is the boss of agency heads, I guess it's up to the President to decide their favored course of action.
Yes, and Chevron decided "let's keep it that way". It established SCOTUS precedent for what was already the status quo.
If the EPA currently relies on its private interpretation of ambiguous passages of federal law, that's messed up and needs fixing. Have them write a draft bill to codify how they currently interpret vague law, and let a senator introduce the bill on the floor.
OTOH, congress physically cannot keep abreast of the state of the art in all of medicine to have an informed opinion on whether to ban or control a specific compound that turned out to be carcinogenic, to give but one example.
You are correct that the US Constitution is poorly suited to governing a nation of ~1/3 billion people in the modern world. Unfortunately, the current political environment make fixing things impossible.
Which is exactly why this is such a terrible decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republics
Admittedly, far more an exception than an ideal to emulate.
The other "typical case" is countries liberated from military occupation...
The US is pretty much alone in that respect. So it’s easy to say that a lot of terrible regimes were enabled by constitutional change. Most of them were. But so were most of the regimes that are much more democratic than the US.
This mirrors the weird fetish that some American Christian’s seem to have with their bible. These things were written by humans. So, of course they are imperfect and can be discussed and improved upon.
France went through counter-revolution, counter-counter revolution, empire, revolution, restoration, revolution, re-restoration, revolution, empire, revolution, republic, WWII, and republic. The US never came anywhere close this kind of collective trauma, even at the worst times of the secession war. Most countries are not protected by two ocean, a small border in the south and a compliant neighbour in the north. Most countries don’t have the luxury of hanging on a thoroughly outdated bit of political philosophy.
It is not a good idea to have those agencies roam freely imposing regulation that they might not able to foresee the economic consequences
So "Please consider that supreme courts may also limit the power of the Bad Guys" is clearly false, because when the Team X has power, they will make sure Team X is in every branch of the government, and their justices will decide whatever the executive branch is doing is very kosher and constitutional, as long as it's their team.
In the end, the system can only hold as long as even "Bad Guys" are good enough that they're not willing to break the system from inside. You keep electing the Real Bad Guys, the system will fail. Checks and balances aren't magic.
I agree; just because I don't like their made-up and pre-determined justifications doesn't make their appointments illegitimate; that would be Mitch McConnell's blatant disregard for the timely execution of his responsibilities basically without recent precedent and certainly inconsistent between the times he did actually fulfill his duties.
Scalia should have been replaced by Obama, or Ginsburg shouldn't have been replaced by Trump. All of the arguments that the Republicans made about Scalia's replacement were equally applicable to Ginsburg's.
This will certainly make life harder for the regulatory agencies, and I don’t want to minimize the difficulty that represents, but this decision reinstates an important check on the Executive’s power at a very critical juncture in our nation’s history.
How could they possibly win? They aren't even on the ballot!
Unfortunately, neither Santa Claus nor an active and well-functioning legislature seem to be available.
That's not true for judges, so any damage by the Bad Guys lasts longer.
Foremost, this decision makes it easier to overturn regulations while making it harder to create them. This strictly moves the balance of power to the right regardless of who controls the presidency or congress at any moment.
Secondly, it moves power out of the executive and to the judicial, which currently leans right, and will likely continue to for decades.
Lastly, there were always limits as too how far of an interpretation they could push because it still has to be reasonable, and still has to follow many other rule-making processes we have. The left got lucky in that the Trump administration was particularly incompetent at following either of those, which we can't always depend on, but even without that it provided some bumpers.