[techostritch]

This seems really inefficient though. Do we really want top-down authority of decision making like this? No one would think it was good if in a company where if the rules of how to do your job were vague (and in this case, we're talking about delegated responsibilities), you had to go to the board of directors to get them clarified.

[Gormo]

> This seems really inefficient though. Do we really want top-down authority of decision making like this?

No, which is why we want the people previously free to make top-down decisions, i.e. executive-branch agencies, to be subject to judicial oversight when attempting to read new powers for themselves into the law. Doing away with Chevron restores that oversight.

[tivert]

And it may be so, but the law/constitution doesn't automatically morph to adapt to whatever some particular person thinks is more efficient. If this is really needed, maybe it's time for a constitutional amendment adapt the structure of the government.

[techostritch]

We can nit pick what you meant by 'automatically' morph, but the fact that it was just forced into a pretty severe morph to adapt to what 6 particular persons wanted I think challenges the argument you're making.

[salawat]

Welcome to the core of the Anti-Federalists argument. They saw a Federal government as an inevitable on-ramp to creating a top-down governed society. Chevron deference represented a worsened slip down that slide, because each Executive Agency basically Lorded over it's National scaled domain without chance for redress in the relief valve specifically designed for the task; the Courts/the Judiciary.

With Chevron deference struck down; it's now possible to even get an Agency's administrative law sanity checked by the Courts.