In any event, large decisions like this are made by political appointees appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
With Chevron overturned, we are now allowing unelected career judges interpreting policy however they see fit. If we were still in a world where precedent mattered and judges set their personal beliefs about policy aside and instead neutrally interpreted conformance with the law, sure. But as we now are packing the judiciary with partisans, it seems we've just substitutef one bad for another.
This is not relevant to their right to legislate or assume duties that the constitution has delegated to congress.
> delegated to congress
Right, and Congress has made that law, and that law says it's delegated to the FTC. What, Congress is simultaneously expected to make every single rule ever but they don't even have the rule making power to... delegate? That's too far? Seems absurd to me, almost intentionally insane with the end-goal of kneecapping rule making as a whole.
No. In a democratic republic, you require the consent of the governed to make rules, not expertise.
I think that overturning Chevron should light a fire under the collective behinds of both parties in Congress to write more specific laws that legislate precisely. I am sure it will be mayhem for a while, unfortunately, as decades of laws will be interpreted by the courts for the first time, but in the end it should result in a structure that I believe conforms better to the intended structure (legislators legislate laws which are executed by the executive branch and whether or not those laws are upheld is judged by the judiciary).
As opposed to unelected judges who, unlike the bureaucrats, have lifetime appointments, almost no political oversight, and are very difficult to remove.
The heads of federal agencies are appointed by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate and serve limited terms.
Congress makes the laws.
Government (bureaucrats) enforces the law.
Judges decide if government enforces the law correctly.
The important part is not how bureaucrats or judges get their job but that bureaucrats were de facto creating laws exceeding their authority.
Because the authority to create laws belongs to congress.
It's not a perfect system but it would be even worse without separation of powers.
The issue is that congress are not experts. They also move really, really slow.
I don't expect my congressmen to know if Red 40 is safe to consume, how much can be consumed, if it should be reported as an ingredient, etc. There's thousands of ingredients in food, I imagine. If that was written into law the law would be very long, no?
And then wouldn't it go out of date remarkably quickly? Hence, we have the FDA. They know about Red 40 and also medication.
What level of specificity do we actually need here? Does Congress need to list out, specifically, what molecular compounds are and are not allowed? That seems absolutely absurd to me.
It seems to me that once we get to the FTC or <insert any federal agency you personally disagree with>, suddenly the rules change and congress does need to be absurdly specific.
Funny how that works.