>How do you know the intent of congress? Have you read a bill before? Usually they state this upfront. They often name the bill after the thing they intend to

>How do you know the intent of congress? Have you read a bill before? Usually they state this upfront. They often name the bill after the thing they intend to address. >Are you going to ask them about every ambiguity in a law? Me personally, no. But people who are affected buy it? Yes. And that is a good thing. >Why shouldn't experts in the relevant areas make their best determination? Because, in this country, laws are not made by bureaucrats. Bureaucrats who get appointed by the executive branch, which is elected only once very 4 years. You see where I am going with this. >Do you have examples you're concerned about where Chevron doctrine is a problem? The two examples in the linked article are good enough. That you are asking this suggests you haven't read the briefs or listened to oral argument. >Seems strange for these fisherman to sue for relief and suddenly agencies no longer have the ability to interpret the laws that apply to them. Literally not what's going on here. If Chevron is torpedoed the agency discretion, that people like for reasons I don't understand, is now at the behest of Congress. If these fishermen win, it means that when congress writes laws they have to actually tell the executive what to do. Which is how it was supposed to be when this country started. Some people like the idea of unnamed and unaccountable "experts" making their rules for them, but personally I much like the idea of those people not getting too big for their britches.