[pc86]

It was Chevron deference that was overturned and it's a very important distinction. The only thing that changed was that courts were required to give deference to the agency interpretation of a statute. Now the agency needs to prove they're not misinterpreting the statute. That seems like a good change, no? Having to prove you're right in court instead of the judge being required to just assume you're right unless they're overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

[zaptheimpaler]

No, it seems to severely undercut the efficiency and power of regulatory agencies to me. Court cases are extremely slow & expensive and having to wait 5-10 years to act is almost as good as not being able to act. I think this might be good in a world where senate could quickly make/amend laws and courts could quickly decide on them, but that's far from where we are..

But that's besides the point, now we're arguing about which is better, but the point is neither is unambiguously correct or following/ignoring the constitution as you earlier claimed. It's simply the court using their authority to take a political stance.

The courts are not directly answerable to the public and hence should not make political decisions in a democracy, yet they made a decision that goes against what the majority [1] of the country wanted.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-...

[consteval]

It seems like a good change if you're a Helen Keller impersonator. To anyone not blind and deaf, we understand the intention of that ruling is to cripple the agencies as much as possible.

That is, and has been, conservative political policy. If you're conservative and ideologically opposed to the notion of the bureaucracy in general then it's a good change, because now they are much weaker.

The fatal flaw you're making here is that courts are impartial. No, the intention of this overturning is such that rules which are obviously correct can still be challenged, delayed, and even killed by conservative courts. It takes even a cursory glance at the courts in Texas to understand this is the case.

There're two aspects to law: what it says, and how it's practiced. What it says is that overstepping agencies must now prove they are following the laws as set by Congress. In practice, this means agencies will be blocked by extremely ungenerous conservative interpretations of law such that they cannot enforce common-sense regulations, with the intention of further empowering the private sector.