I have only grade school understanding of the branches but I was taught the executive branch is supposed to enforce what congress decides with laws which this reversal seems to support.
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.
I think you are being sarcastic, but actually a radically reduced executive branch would be a huge step in the right direction for the actual rights of citizens to determine their own laws.
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.
I refuse to be that cynical. All people can vote. Chevron was enacted in 1984. So the most progressive periods in US History occurred before it was enacted, when (according to you) a power vacuum was filled in by the people with the most resources.
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).
No, I do not think that. I'll copy/paste this from another reply I made to a very similar comment:
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.
> No, I do not think that. I'll copy/paste this from another reply I made to a very similar comment:
> 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.
> 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.
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.