Can you say more about this? It sounds very interesting.
In Chevron, the Supreme Court set forth a legal test as to when the court should defer to the agency’s answer or interpretation, holding that such judicial deference is appropriate where the agency’s answer was not unreasonable, so long as Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.
This is the SCOTUS ruling that gave administration so much power in 1984, so it's relatively new. The validity of it is currently being heard in:
https://cooleypubco.com/2023/05/11/chevron-deference-case-fi...
I hope it goes away.
It is strange that textualism or republicanism is associated with small/weak government. That reputation is unearned imo.
To wit, the independent agency stuff is about who can do what, not what can be done. It is not, in any way, a meaningful limitation on the powers of the government as a whole, just a change to the distribution of where those powers lie.
It's already something that has been legally contentious, overturning it has textualist support, and the textualists justices are also broadly Republican who want a weakened federal government.
[1] I mean not really perfect since they have to pass legislation to make those changes and it's easier to block legislation than to pass it. So a minority party in congress with presidential support can (and has) wielded undue legislative power.