When dealing with a country of over 300 million people and a near $30 trillion economy Congress cannot possibly specify things so completely that there won't be things that need interpretation.
How did it work before the Chevron defense? The USA didn't implode before 1984.
Congress would need to outline the limits of the executive function in the law. It would need to detail what the goals are (and are not).
To me this seems like a vast improvement rather than just passing a bill "regulate pollution" and then whatever the EPA decides is now law impervious to court challenges.
Congress passed laws that required interpretation to actually implement. If someone disagreed with the agency interpretation they went to court. The court would then figure out an interpretation.
All Chevron deference did is tell the court that if the agency interpretation was reasonable the court should go with that.
With or without Chevron, "unelected bureaucrats" end up interpreting the law.
> With or without Chevron, "unelected bureaucrats" end up interpreting the law.
You really feel like there is no difference between a judge, schooled in the law and some GS-10 government employee?
Really? In deciding whether or not the government is following a law passed by Congress? You know, acting as a judicial expert? The "exact same unelected bureaucrats"?
Let me give you a real life example (from the people who brought the case to the Supreme Court) - the Dept of Fisheries decided that some fisherman required an observer to be on the boat when they fished (to make sure they followed regulations) and that they had to pay for it.
That was never a part of the law, only a decision by a bureaucrat. It couldn't even be challenged in court due to Chevron.
You feel that is a better situation than Americans saying "wait a second, why am I paying for this? that's not even in the law" and bringing the decision to a court of law?
You feel like taking away that power from Americans is a good thing?
Congress would need to outline the limits of the executive function in the law. It would need to detail what the goals are (and are not).
To me this seems like a vast improvement rather than just passing a bill "regulate pollution" and then whatever the EPA decides is now law impervious to court challenges.