You shouldn't assume others are acting in bad faith when the much more likely explanation is you're just not paying attention. Three major developments from th

You shouldn't assume others are acting in bad faith when the much more likely explanation is you're just not paying attention. Three major developments from the courts in this direction have been: - The overturning of Chevron gave courts the power to interpret portions of laws written by subject matter experts, instead of those experts themselves. - The big questions doctrine has allowed the courts to decide when the legislature has deligated too much power. - Cornerpost has removed the statue of limitations for challenge policies and rules out in place by agencies. These together clearly paint a picture. Any policy can be challenged (in any venue, allowing the plaintiff to pick their venue). This allows policies in place for decades to be challenged and brought to the supreme court. The most recent court has adopted the major questions doctrine, allowing them to strike down any policy they feel pertain to "issues of major political or economic significance." (no they didn't define it more than that). Or, if they can't make that argument, they can interpret the law to strike down the policy due to the overturning of Chevron. We've seen an unprecedented shift of power to the supreme court in the last few years. They're using the disfunction in the legislature as an opening to gain power. Which is scary considering it's a group of 9 unelected people with lifetime appointments. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_questions_doctrine https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/corner-post-inc-v-board-of-governors-of-the-federal-reserve-system/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/corner-post-inc-...