Ignoring that question entirely; how is this relevant to the situation at hand. Based on the article it seems to me that the court is ready to strike down a provision that lets federal bureacrats essentially legislate without being elected. This is not a question of 'free markets' but of 'democracy'. Who, in a democratic state, or a republic like ours (since I know someone's going to bring it up) has the right and the authority to make rules? Is it only Congress? If so, then the court ought to strike it down. If the bureaucrats ought to be able to participate despite having no public mandate, then the court ought to keep it. Either way, the structure of the economy is pretty irrelevant to this question.

Bureaus of various flavors are delegated their authority by Congress. It was done to let specialists in the various fields make rules according to their domain knowledge. They're not elected so they, theoretically, don't have a political agenda they try and fulfill at the cost of their domain.

And honestly, even if these laws had to be rubber stamped by congress or the judiciary, they would be deferring to the very same specialists.

As an aside, in our Democratic Republic, laws are also created by judges, who are not generally elected into their positions.

The specialists are appointed by the President, a position which is entirely political. Appeasing their political boss is one of the specialists’ job requirements. Why? Because if they don’t they get fired. Presidents from both political parties have gone to court in order to ensure this is so.

Limiting the power vested in the executive branch is a necessary step to keep our three branch system working.

And while common law is created by judges, it is always possible to pass a law that overrides it.

> They're not elected so they, theoretically, don't have a political agenda they try and fulfill at the cost of their domain.

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm.

> And honestly, even if these laws had to be rubber stamped by congress or the judiciary, they would be deferring to the very same specialists.

Sure, but making Congress rubber stamp them means there is oversight from the public. The argument is not 'bureaucrats and technocrats should not be involved in crafting rules', but rather 'Congress should also be involved in crafting rules so that the judiciary is not asked to then comment on those rules'.

> As an aside, in our Democratic Republic, laws are also created by judges, who are not generally elected into their positions.

Laws are not created by judges. This is a major problem which the court is hopefully going to address. Right now, as the article states, they get a lot of cases where they're asked to comment on rules that congress did not pass, and then yes, they start to act like legislators. If they strike this down, then the court will not be asked to legislate so often. Like it or not, a rule backed by an act of congress is much more likely to stand, since the courts are typically reticent to strike down laws passed by Congress itself.