[billy_bitchtits]

[flagged]

[jkaplowitz]

Chevron being overturned doesn’t in any way prevent a court from deciding that the statute authorizes a regulation. It just prevents the agency from saying “you have to defer to our reasonable interpretation.”

But yeah, the conservative Supreme Court indeed may very much not like the Pennsylvania court’s interpretation that the necessary statutory authority does exist.

[ubertaco]

I mean, the problem with the current supreme court is that their decision-making process -- as demonstrated in the Trump immunity case (where the ruling was in direct contradiction to established law) -- is not a question of what the law says, but what the conservatives on the court (or their deep-pocketed bribers) want.

[linuxftw]

The court is not conservative, it routinely sides with the federal government. They rarely find things unconstitutional, only that certain actions taken by agencies aren't authorized by the congress. If congress passes more laws, the court would uphold them.

If the court even remotely reflected the opinions of actual conservative voters, it would take radically different and drastic actions compared to what has happened.