Like I said, there are legitimate arguments to be made against this change, but a lot of people are quick to assume that the Court is out to get them.

The cases that people would approve of if they heard about them get ignored by social media, instead focusing exclusively on the cases that undo some rights that had been established by judicial or executive precedent. So we end up in a place where a lot of commenters are under the false impression that the Court just hates ___ people, rather than seeing the whole picture of the court systematically rolling back judicial activist rulings and executive rule makings.

The court seems intent on allowing judge shopping conservatives to gut any even mildly inconvenient law.

Going back to a "balance" where judges interpret law and no one else creates massive ambiguity across courts & greatly degrades any ability to govern. That seems to be the fantasy world that some parts of America desire. And that this court is working towards, hard as it can.

It interprets that only the court gets to allow or deny

I do not understand how you can not see this is an activist court. They have by fiat invented new judicial principles out of thin air: "history and tradition" and "major questions doctrine" come to mind. And they apply these arbitrary principles in a heavy handed, inconsistent and simultaneously predictable way while sanctimoniously acting as though we can't see what they are doing.

>Yes but people who have been listening have also been dreading this coming for years.

Why are they dreading this? I find it strange how so many people are upset that the Supreme Court is forcing Congress to do its job, which is pass laws.

But the effect of this ruling will mean that Congress will have to pass an order of magnitude more laws; and there is only so much time for debates (which are required in order to pass laws). Or, executive bodies won't be able to do what is required to keep country wide productivity up.

This is the equivalent of requiring a stand up meeting for every commit to a repo; it's plainly obvious that over time it will kill USA's productivity. This is judicial drag on the economy.

It's worth noting that other comparable countries don't delegate law-making power to the executive in the same way the US does. For example in the UK only Parliament may make laws, the civil service can draft it but that's the limit (post-EU-exit that is, the EU is something else).

There is a concept called a statutory instrument in which the process is optimized by allowing changes to be made to law either by "laying them before" Parliament, in which case only approval or rejection is possible, not amendment. Annulling new regulations in this manner is extremely rare however. Or in some cases it's allowed for the responsible Minister or committee of MPs to make the changes directly, which in practice means they sign off on changes proposed by the civil service. This is usually only the case for very minor changes like updating thresholds, shutting down roads for construction work etc.

Despite the inability of the civil service to directly change the law, the UK is not suffering from a deficit of regulations. So there's no reason in principle it should harm productivity, unless you mean, productivity of the government itself.

It seems like an important distinction that unlike the US their government intentionally collapses if the legislature no longer supports the executive. Given two separate legislatures, the filibuster, the presidential veto , fixed terms, etc. it might just make sense for the US government to work a little differently.

As an FYI: Parliamentary governments routinely delegate regulation-making power to the particular Ministries, in exactly the same way as the USA Congress delegates it to executive agencies.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislati...

Yes I mentioned SIs already. The powers are technically delegated to a minister not an agency, however, who is (almost always) an elected member of parliament.

That's not true, negative procedure SIs do not need to be approved. They can only be rejected. Most SIs are negatives, not the positives that you described.

> forcing Congress to do its job

> Why are they dreading this?

You answered your own question there. Congress should do its job, but as a matter of fact it is not doing its job and it is not going to do its job anytime soon.

The Court might be technically, legally, philosophically correct in removing the inelegant hacks that the previous courts set up to route around the fact that Congress does not do its job. But in the meantime, Congress is still not doing its job.

I'm talking about the "people who have been listening to the court and dreading this". Who are these listeners who remain undefined? Are they congressmembers? Are they pundits?

The obvious example is pro-choice people who wish that Congress would pass a law that favors their position, and have been forced to rely on weird Supreme Court rulings by activist judges instead.

You can argue that the pro-choice people should just accept that Congress does not decide in their favor, that this is a democracy and in a democracy sometimes you lose. But it's not like Congress has decided in favor of their opponents either. They just decide nothing. If Congress actually decided one way or the other then at least people would know where they stand and could stop feeling anxious about it.

Mainly corporate lawyers, legal scholars (mainly academic institutions), and public interest lawyers. The people in the trenches.

Me. I like regulatory agencies to be able to regulate, and unless congress figures out it’s shit quickly there will be big problems.

> I find it strange how so many people are upset that the Supreme Court is forcing Congress to do its job, which is pass laws.

That's the Assume a Can Opener fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assume_a_can_opener

That's a nice catch 22 they've got there. Congress has been passing laws for decades under the assumption that the Chevron case is settled precedent. Now they're getting rid of it because... Congress needed to instead pass laws completely ignoring the courts ruling?

Congress is broken and structurally incapable of passing laws under this level of political polarization because there are too many veto points (bicameral legislature, the filibuster, the presidential veto) for any law to get passed even if it's supported by the majority of legislators and the majority of voters.

> Why are they dreading this? I find it strange how so many people are upset that the Supreme Court is forcing Congress to do its job, which is pass laws.

Congress is extremely dysfunctional and won’t be able to keep up. Corporations are going to exploit the lag in rule making by fucking over individuals like you and me. That’s why I’m concerned.

Vesting unreviewable legislative authority in unelected bureaucrats specifically chosen because of their long and close ties to the industries they are meant to regulate is anathema to every tenet of democracy. Good riddance.

Removing Chevron deference moves authority from the administrative agencies to the courts, who are not only also unelected bureaucrats, they are more insulated from democratic forces since they have lifetime appointments. Agency heads are political appointments and change with every president.

They're judges, not bureaucrats; they cannot issue regulations governing people's behavior; and you entirely ignored "unreviewable."

Yeah, grandparent is being infantilizing/patronizing