[topper-123]

Not specific to the Chevron deference, but I’ve always felt that judicial interpretation should be conservative, i.e. legal rulings should aim to not change society without a previous law change by the parliament. This would mean that the power to change how society works should lie with the parliament, not the judiciary.

I’m aware thus would also block some changes that I agree with, but longer term I think this would be much healthier for democracy.

[digging]

Legislation is always the first-line rule maker, this is about deciding who is the second-line rule maker - the administrative state of experts and political appointees, or the judicial state of, well, political appointees.

[topper-123]

Yeah, I was not talking about this case in particular. For example, various international treaties are often very vaguely formulated, which has the concequence that practical law making gets done in the courts (which is too undemocratic). I would prefer the judiciary in such cases to e.g. rule that the parliment needs to make clearer rules and until that happens, the court adjourns the legal case.

This would move both power and responsibility to the parliament from the courts, which IMO would be healtier for democracy long-term.

[rat87]

Perhaps a better word for that would not be conservative but not interventionist. I think some of that is possible (less interventist) but the US unlike the UK is built around the supreme court deciding according to the constitution. The UK makes Parliamentary supremacy work but even if we could throw out the constitution I don't think Americans would trust that idea.

That said getting rid of the Chevron defense and a lot of other rulings from the court have been both very activist, very harmful, and badly argued.

[Georgelemental]

What if a previous judicial interpretation violated this rule, it is better to reverse the decision (changing society again) or to stick with it?

[rat87]

It didn't. The previous ruling acknowledged that Congress had delegated that authority.

[Georgelemental]

I was speaking in general terms, not referring to a specific decision.

[whoiscroberts]

…with the parliament, not the judiciary[and now that it is overturned, certainly not with bureaucrats who run agencies].