I understand your take here, but I fail to see how this is really a rebuttal? Congress has the ability to change the authorizing act if they believe that an ag

I understand your take here, but I fail to see how this is really a rebuttal? Congress has the ability to change the authorizing act if they believe that an agency is acting incorrectly when authorization is ambiguous. If they do not do so - I would read that as congress intends the agency to act in the manner they are acting. The court is now saying that failure to act is not a decision in itself, and that the courts are now allowed to decide - That feels like a fairly blatant power grab. Why must congress be forced to continually act if the agency is making decisions it believes reasonable under the authorizations it granted? There will never be a law that lacks ambiguity - it's just not possible.