[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.

[Ajedi32]

Okay thank you. That's actually a clear argument.

When I say things like "the courts are the mechanism our constitution defines for resolving disputes about the interpretation of law", I am making a principled argument based on my understanding of the Constitution and the Separation of Powers, not based on anything the Supreme Court has or has not said.

The United States Constitution defines three separate branches of government:

1. The Legislative Branch, which makes law

2. The Judicial Branch, which interprets law

3. The Executive Branch, which enforces law

These branches are intentionally separated from each other to prevent the concentration of power, and so that each branch can serve as a check and balance on the powers of the other branches.

Government agencies are part of the Executive Branch, which enforces law. They are not part of the Judicial Branch, which interprets law. Therefore, they should not have a role in interpreting the law, and granting them that power breaks this simple fundamental principle of the Constitution.

This is civics 101 level stuff. It doesn't seem like it should be controversial to me, which is why I've been asserting it as true without feeling the need to try to justify my points beyond those assertions.