Whats the problem? If congress disagrees with what the courts did to fill in the blanks in their laws, they just need to pass new laws.
The American system has always been full-throated adversarial -- and extremely successful. The historical system of legislature could delegate, and if the delegation went bad, the judiciary could intervene, rather than the legislature has to intervene in every bit of administrative minutae.
Analogy would roughly be...idk, the CEO has HR handle pencil procurement. HR, over the years, used this to interpret they could swap in mechanical pencils, erasable pens. But the new CFO tells the board this has to stop, the CEO is responsible for signing off on expenses. And then the employees say this is a good thing, that'll get the CEO more involved. But the CEO is already involved, just busy with other things.
The pencil example is all fun and games, but swap « buying mechanical pencils » with « sending people to prison », and then it makes more sense why some people prefer the judiciary branch to constrain the power of HR when there’s ambiguity.
What would be unreasonable is to give those 3 options to a judge and ask them to do a coin toss on which one is right, and then let it sit that way.
I may be radical in this, but I wish the judiciary could force the legislative branch to decide on what the law they wrote means.
I'd also prefer a more practical example to argue with.
IMHO my shift on this is due to the practical examples seen over the years, legislature delegating to an agency they create, with judicial review, ends up being a good thing.
I'm honestly unaware of any unjust rule-making that ended up unfairly trampling someone, much less whip-lash back and forth.
Anything passed by the legislative that tries to end run that delegation is simply not even a law. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. What is explicit within it overrides everything else.
Congress is like the product manager and creates something like the URS (user requirements specification).
The executive branches like the developer team that has to Turn those high-level requirements into detailed implementation plans.
The judiciary is typically the quality assurance and auditing team. They make sure that the executive branch hasn’t gone way past the initial requirements and they also check to make sure the initial requirements make sense and don’t cause other problems.
You meant to say "extremely wealthy citizens." The power vacuum that comes with less government is always filled-in by people with the most resources. And those sorts of people only see the non-wealthy as objects to be exploited for them to acquire even more wealth.
Why didn't those super powerful vacuum-fillers carry the day in the Civil Rights Movement, or when marginal income tax rates were 90+%, or when the EPA was created? Because they don't have the power that everyone thinks they do (maybe even they think they have, themselves).
I do not expect Congress to atomically approve or disapprove every regulatory action. That is a straw man. I expect them to write clear laws that state what agencies can do, what they cannot do, and how they should do it.
The case before the court is a good example of how the opaque and unaccountable nature of a federal agency allows them to serve their own self-interest at the expense of the citizens they are supposed to protect. Specifically, Congress specified in law that "authorizes the government to require trained, professional observers on regulated fishing vessels". But their law did not specify who would pay for these observers. So under Chevron, the agency got to decide. And, shocker! They decided they did not have to pay for it.
This ruling stops that specific abuse, and hopefully many others. The actions of federal agencies is not generally a thing to be desired.
> I do not expect Congress to atomically approve or disapprove every regulatory action. That is a straw man. I expect them to write clear laws that state what agencies can do, what they cannot do, and how they should do it.
But it isn't, the world changes, writing laws that anticipate these changes is equivalent to predicting the future. Take for example laws to regulate the telephone networks, those networks over time changed from carrying voice traffic to including data to carrying data exclusively (and voice just being data). So even if we believe the networks are effectively the same, Congress now has to waste their time to write new laws to keep up with those technological advances (and telecom is by far from the only area, what about new medical therapies that we hadn't imagined previously. Should Congress write new laws for these? ) essentially this is the way to paralyze it.
> The case before the court is a good example of how the opaque and unaccountable nature of a federal agency allows them to serve their own self-interest at the expense of the citizens they are supposed to protect. Specifically, Congress specified in law that "authorizes the government to require trained, professional observers on regulated fishing vessels". But their law did not specify who would pay for these observers. So under Chevron, the agency got to decide. And, shocker! They decided they did not have to pay for it.
I don't see what is shocking about it. Are you shocked that you have to pay for your rubbish collection (which is a requirement for living in many places)?
> This ruling stops that specific abuse, and hopefully many others. The actions of federal agencies is not generally a thing to be desired.
Isn't that just the default assumption of all regulatory law? e.g. when the FDA adds an ingredient labeling requirement, there's no expectation that the FDA has to pay for the costs of adding the labels. When the EPA says "hey you can't dump your waste in this river" they don't have to pay the cost of getting rid of it in a compliant way. This doesn't strike me as an abuse at all.
It seems like people don't understand how the system works.
Congress cries about Roe vs. Wade, but the power is entirely in their hands to pass federal law to secure abortion rights.
It's like the police crying that someone should do something about crime.
I think they’re doing ok.