[fzeroracer]

No, power was explicitly shifted to SCOTUS because the goal is that judges can take any form of interpretation of the law that they want that's favorable to their political outcome. Surely you're familiar with some of the stuff the 5th circuit has been doing right? The Texas abortion bounty hunter law stood because it relies on a incredibly odious interpretation of the law by an exceedingly corrupt and unaccountable court.

Congress can and does write laws. But the quibbling now is that companies can take cases to the 5th circuit for example and argue that XYZ novel chemical isn't a pollutant because it's not explicitly enumerated in the law even if it's causing vast amounts of environmental damage. Laws will always require some form of interpretation because you simply cannot enumerate everything that can and will happen in the future and that's historically how laws were written in the past. Which is why Chevron Deference existed in the first place.

[Alupis]

> No, power was explicitly shifted to SCOTUS because the goal is that judges can take any form of interpretation of the law that they want that's favorable to their political outcome.

> by an exceedingly corrupt and unaccountable court

I don't even know where to begin with this. Your personal politics are preventing you from seeing reality. This is some really low-level election-year propaganda you have decided to believe.

> But the quibbling now is that companies can take cases to the 5th circuit for example and argue that XYZ novel chemical isn't a pollutant because it's not explicitly enumerated in the law even if it's causing vast amounts of environmental damage

This is how the process is supposed to work. An agency is not allowed to just deem things unsafe and outlaw them. The process to determine if such a chemical is harmful or if a policy is acceptable is by way of the courts. What changed here is the agencies can no longer, unilaterally and without recourse or accountability, decide what is or is not illegal. They never had that power, yet they were allowed to pretend they did for way too long.

To circumvent that process, Congress (or your state legislature in the abortion example you brought up) can and should pass laws that direct the executive branch on how to enforce the laws and what exactly they want enforced. No, laws do not need to be extremely specific as you stated, but the boundaries of enforcement should be absolute. Nobody should have to guess if an agency is going to wake up today and decide something is illegal without an actual process.

In short, any argument in favor of the previous status-quo, supporting the Chevron Deference, is an argument in favor of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats deciding the laws of the land with no oversight and no recourse. They may change the "laws" daily, weekly, never, nobody knows! That is an insane way to run a country...

[fzeroracer]

> This is some really low-level election-year propaganda you have decided to believe.

There is no propaganda. Actions taken by a court that I view to be wholly corrupt is exactly why I left Texas, because the abortion bounty hunter laws followed by the banning of abortion had quick and decisive impact on my decision to stay in Texas.

> In short, any argument in favor of the previous status-quo, supporting the Chevron Deference, is an argument in favor of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats deciding the laws of the land with no oversight and no recourse. They may change the "laws" daily, weekly, never, nobody knows! That is an insane way to run a country...

This is literally what the Supreme Court has been doing in the past five years alone, radically changing the status quo and upending precedent in a way that materially affects my life. People keep saying unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats but the supreme court and by extension, appointed federal judges are the epitome of that example. There is nothing I can do if I disagree with the decision of a for-life appointee, but the bureaucrats at least rotate out.