[hackyhacky]

> Chevron was outrageous from purely a legal perspective.

I disagree, but in any case I don't see how your opinion on Chevron is relevant to the matter at hand.

> Chevron likely caused this Executive Order and rightfully so.

How could it, considering that Chevron hasn't been the law of the land since June 2024?

[programmerpass]

The reason Chevron likely compelled the Executive Order, at least in part, is because the Trump administration likely views the ability for agencies to self-resolve ambiguities in their own rules as bad and potentially obstructive to their agenda.

For example, an agency might self-resolve an ambiguous rule to say they can’t be fired or similar, which would directly conflict with what the Trump administration wants to do.

While it was overturned, perhaps there are fears of other loopholes that they see that can accomplish this beyond simple case law.

[HaZeust]

I haven't understood this angle of sympathizers for Unitary Executive.

Even from a purely strategic play, and you sitting here saying, "it makes sense why the Executive branch would make their life even easier to rule with an even more ironed fist", does it ever give you pause to what you're saying? Lack of consolidation to power in the Executive is what ensures checks and balances.

This isn't a development you should be gunning for - in ANY administration, because even if you're pro-47, you're not going to like the precedent this creates for the power of the next admin.

[hackyhacky]

Republicans and the Supreme Court will suddenly take a much greater interest in checks-and-balances when there is a different party in the White House... if that ever happens again.

[programmerpass]

What is “pro-47”?

[HaZeust]

47th President - Donald Trump