[llamaimperative]

There's ample possibility of legal challenge. There was a low possibility of legal overturn for one specific reason: courts generally agreed that agencies' interpretations were reasonable.

> Proving something is "not reasonable" in a legal sense is a pretty high bar to clear

Sure it is, but that is literally not the bar. The courts always had the authority to do their own analysis of reasonableness so long as the challenger raised the question. In fact, they didn't just have the authority to do it, they were obligated to do it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706

The low probability of overturn is an argument for Chevron deference. It is empirical proof that courts almost always found agencies' rules to be reasonable interpretations.

[Ajedi32]

The fact that they're analyzing the reasonableness of the agencies' interpretations and not the correctness of their interpretations is precisely the problem. There are a lot of possible interpretations of the law that are reasonable but not correct. The judiciary's job is supposed to be to interpret the law, not just to decide whether defendant's own personal interpretation meets some minimum bar of reasonableness.

[llamaimperative]

Arguing is easy when you simply assert your conclusion! :)

"Correctness" is an actually meaningless concept here. Correct according to which rubric? Please answer specifically.

[Ajedi32]

Correct according to the mechanism our constitution defines for resolving disputes about the interpretation of law: the judgement of the court system. A judgement which they were not allowed to make under Cheveron, because they were limited to evaluating the reasonableness of the agency's own personal interpretation.

[llamaimperative]

You’re aware that the Chevron SCOTUS decision was itself part of this exact Constitutional system, right? As was the overturning of Chevron.

I.e. you’re going to need a better rubric.

"The agency's own personal interpretation" is another nonsense phrase where you're trying to simply presume your opinion alongside a weak argument. The agency is not a person.

[Ajedi32]

I'm making perfectly reasonable arguments; you're the one who's talking nonsense. If there's something you think I have yet to prove why don't you say what it is instead of just calling my arguments weak without offering any counter?

>I.e. you’re going to need a better rubric.

I see nothing wrong with the rubric I gave. It's the one the constitution set up, and therefore 100% correct from a legal perspective. Past courts having different opinions from the current one is irrelevant to that.

> The agency's own personal interpretation" is another nonsense phrase

No, it means exactly what is says. The agency has its own interpretation which has and ought to have no more legal weight than a random person's. If it's just the word "personal" you're objecting to, that's obviously a figure of speech that doesn't alter the substance of my argument.

An agency is an agency, not a court. They have exactly zero constitutionally granted authority to interpret law. Why in your view should their opinion on the law have any more weight than yours or mine, or than any other person's personal interpretation? Or more importantly, more weight than the courts; the institution created for the very purpose of interpreting the law? Because it seems very obvious to me that it shouldn't. Especially in the context of a lawsuit to which the agency is one of the parties.

[llamaimperative]

> It's the one the constitution set up, and therefore 100% correct from a legal perspective. Past courts having different opinions from the current one is irrelevant to that.

Okay so on June 27, 2024, the "100% correct from a legal perspective" was that courts defer to agencies when they have reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

On June 28, 2024, the "100% correct from a legal perspective" was that courts should not defer to agencies when they have reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Each of these decisions define which structure "the Constitution set up." This fact is itself defined in the Constitution.

Your argument that this is a good decision because it's "Constitutionally correct" is literally just begging the question. It is an entirely circular argument that could just as easily have been applied to defend Chevron. If your argument can be used to defend either side of it, it's a bad argument.