Significance of recent Supreme’s Chevron decision?

In My Humble Opinion
1

On the face of it this seems like a lousy decision, overturning a lot of precedent for little reason. Don’t organizations have expertise? Way more than most politicians?

But I am not American. Could someone explain what this might mean in more detail?

It has been discussed briefly here (in terms of personal feelings):

Here is a (limited gift) link for reference:

Here is the “most popular” response to the NYT article at the moment. (Others have argued here these agencies are also susceptible to outside influence.):
”Great – So now instead of experts from federal agencies deciding on the scope of wetlands and school-lunch programs, or how complicated financial instruments or student loans can be regulated, or certain drugs tested, or our beef inspected, we’ll have the courts and industry lobbyists (aka cough cough Congresspeople) deciding whether we can breath clean air, drink clean water, safely take medications, trust our beef…”

2

Moderating: This is going to get political. No way around it.

3

I leave it to your usual discretion which is the best forum for this topic.

4

This decision sets the stage for ignorant Justices to decide matters of Science and Engineering as just one example. It is a major plank of the Conservative Republican goal started about 30 years ago.

5

I didn’t realize the thread I quoted contains new info. Perhaps the title of the old thread could be updated, and this thread closed or merged.

6

Moderating: We’re good here, that was a pre-decision thread, this is a post decision thread.

7

Possible duplicate thread in P&E

On edit - I guess that thread was linked. Unsure of the value of 2 threads, but not sure I have much to contribute to either.

8

The decision is utterly catastrophic, but that won’t be clear for several years.

9

Seems like a continuation of the SCOTUS student-loan ruling viz. agencies cannot interpret the law. You could argue that with this SCOTUS if I should have written Democratic agencies cannot interpret law.

10

Small bump:

There’s an excellent and thorough analysis of the decision and its potential impact here:

Long, but recommended for interested parties.

11

Legal Eagle has weighed in on the ruling;