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.

> Society can't operates if laws change every day

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.

Who see's it as a 'bad' idea? How do you make that decision? Is it based on ideology or hard fact? Who provides the facts? How are they vetted?

We have 6 people of questionable character reversing decisions that people of visibly better character made...

I feel like this is just degrading the fabric of US society faster by driving division to the end of a marginal ideological gain.

And then there are three people of questionable character trying to uphold them. Your comment is blatantly partisan.

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.

> they all do it

Not really. See the chart at https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli... - Thomas gets more than the rest combined. The other standouts are Scalia and Alito - Thomas's closest ideological allies.

> if the DOJ thought it was an actual crime

It would be, at the very least, a major ethics violation for any non-SCOTUS judge. It probably should be a crime.

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 should be a very high threshold..

there's no higher threshold in the US than a US Supreme Court decision

The Court's threshold for doing this should be higher than this decision implies.

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.

The current pace of legislation is glacier slow

Which is fine. Legislation shouldn't be rushed, and the default should be to do nothing.

New laws can be passed to put new policy into place and change those long-standing things explicitly.

To paraphrase Linus: If it's a bug that people depend on then it's not a bug- it's a feature.

By this logic, slavery was a feature and not a bug.

it's funny how progressive turn into conservatives, as though we need to cement whatever happened in the 70s

things clearly took a turn for the worse since then in many fundamental ways specific to the progressive "revolutions"