[persnicker]

This is a fantastic outcome.

If you give an agency the power to interpret the law that congress has prescribed to the agency, the agency will almost always chose an interpretation that is in their self-interest - often leading to a corrupt (really, just an outright wrong) interpretation of the law.

It's surprising that Chevron was ever even case law. Thank goodness we have a set of justices that are actually looking to get rid of conflicts of interest and focus on an objective and conflict-free rule of law.

It seems based on the dissent liberals want to relish in giving government agencies power to interpret what they want, which is consistent with yesterday's dissent from the liberals where the liberals dissented with the SEC case where the liberals dissent stated that the SEC should be able to prosecute individuals in their own SEC-based rules with their own SEC-based court.

The court system is moving to ensure there are more checks and balances and that the law is interpreted and prosecuted in a way that has less conflict of interest.

[EricDeb]

I strongly disagree. As someone above said it's the equivalent of requiring a meeting for every commit when building software. How good do you think congress will be at passing small laws when changes need to be made in federal agencies regulations?

[persnicker]

If every commit of software had the potential to put someone in prison or ruin their life based on a law that didn't exist though the agency itself interpreted for their own self-interest, I would certainly want a meeting for every commit.

Furthermore, it's not "every commit" - it's commits that are questionable or have varying interpretations. Most litigation occurs relating to known laws that has substantial case law relating to it. The edge case situations are the ones that are not accounted for, and they're the far minority of litigation. It's these edge case situations which will require a meeting, and deservedly so. I'm sure you wouldn't be against that, however if you have facts to provide that would show this would be a bad outcome or what I stated would in fact lead to an absurd result, then please go ahead an provide it.

[cryptonector]

No, Raimondo means only that regulations that would be quite a stretch under the current statutory delegation of power won't stand.