Comment by godzillabrennus
1 year ago
Regulations and regulators existed before 1984 when the case was argued. In my opinion, it's a good idea to curtail the power of government whenever possible. I'd rather Congress specify in a bill/law that a committee of leading experts from the private sector and the advocacy side of any given subject matter weigh in yearly on any topic before regulations can be changed rather than blindly hoping regulators know what they are doing.
Chevron was ruled in 1984 but it was a codification of principles that had already been in practice. It was a standard Supreme Court ruling, a formalization of precedent. After all, some degree of deference to executive interpretation is required, because it's impossible to write truly unambiguous law in any regular language.
> a committee of leading experts from the private sector and the advocacy side of any given subject matter weigh in yearly on any topic before regulations can be changed
This is part of the design of regulatory agencies. Rulings like this come after an extensive process of consultation and public comment.
Curtailing the power of government means upholding the Chevron Deference, obviously.
If every little thing now becomes an open question of law, we exist in a vacuum of power where courts arbitrarily decide all sorts of things, giving massive amounts of power to the government.
Uncertainty breeds timidness. In order for people to have freedom to act, they need to know in advance what is legal and what is not.
The private sector has demonstrated a thousand times over that they're bad-faith actors.
The government is also just as much bad actors whenever [insert whatever side you are opposed to] is in power.