Most of the decisions that get to the Supreme Court could reasonably be decided either way. If they were simple, clear decisions they wouldn't make it to the highest court after all. I don't necessarily think the original Chevron decision was the "correct" choice, or the "incorrect" choice, but it was the choice that was made and for 40 years Congress wrote laws and funded agencies on the assumption that that is how things would continue to work. If it had been decided differently all those years ago, then 40 years of laws would have been written differently.
It's like the standard plug in the US. Was that the objectively correct choice for what a plug should look like? No. Is there possibly a better configuration that some other country is using? Yes. Would it be worth it to make the change now and make everyone in the country change all of their plugs and electronic devices? No.
In any of those laws Congress passed in the past 40 years they could have taken the opportunity to codify the original Chevron decision into law. So the fault for any disruptions or bad outcomes lies entirely with them. Voters who are unhappy with the situation should complain to their members of Congress.
Obviously an outright bad idea should not be kept around just because that's how we have always done it, but don't underestimate the value of predictability and stability. Society can't operates if laws change every day, even if it's driven by a desire to make the laws better.
Funny you should mention that. Gorsuch wrote the exact same thing while arguing in favor of overruling Chevron. You can find it by Ctrl+F-ing the string "though the laws do not".
> "Chevron’s fiction has led us to a strange place. One where authorities long thought reserved for Article III are transferred to Article II, where the scales of justice are tilted systematically in favor of the most powerful, where legal demands can change with every election even though the laws do not, and where the people are left to guess about their legal rights and responsibilities"
"Obviously an outright bad idea should not be kept around just because that's how we have always done it.."
But who decides that? Laws do NOT change every day and I look forward to your examples of that. The problem is that laws are not changing, and legislators are depending on the courts to do the hard work for them.
No but this is not a bad idea. Why should congress have to be experts and pass hyper specific laws for every aspect of a government agency rather than just deferring to experts?
Because those experts haven't been able to craft unambiguous laws that aren't up for interpretation. There's nothing stopping congress from deferring to those experts still.
If Congress lacks expertise on a particular topic then they can front load the process and seek expert input, then write that into the legislation. There's no need to delegate that to the Executive branch for interpretation after the law has been passed. This might slow down the pace of legislation, which would be fine.
There should be a very high threshold for "we're pressing the reset button on a regulatory infrastructure built on decades worth of precedent, #yolo!", yes.
There aren't three, there is every justice between when the decision was decided and now. Republican and Democratic judges upheld stare decisis for years.
Note Roberts isn't of questionable character but if he loses the conservative majority he may as well side with them to keep political capital. The other five not so much.
I don't see any of them as having questionable character, because if you focus on one you must consider them all, regardless of politics. You may have noted in Roberts opinion that this does not overturn decisions in the past, only the courts process for deciding them.
If accepting millions of dollars of gifts and trips from individuals with business brought to the court while neither recusing oneself from related cases nor even disclosing said gifts doesn't constitute questionable character, what does?
It may be immoral, and unethical, but they all do it, have always done it, and if the DOJ thought it was an actual crime I am sure they would have pursued charges in this highly politicized environment we find ourselves in.
They may have questionable ethics and morals, all of them, but we're stuck with them for life.
