Chevron Doctrine

The discussion of the  Chevron Doctrine is not just about who INTERPRETS the law.  It is also who MAKES the law.  

In a meeting with two Federal staff regarding the CLASS Act (the long-term care insurance part of the ACA), I objected that what they were talking about doing was clearly contrary to the law and asked them how they could justify that.  The first to respond said he was comfortable because they “were making the law better”.  The second then responded “You’re right.  We might not get away with it.”  

Reversing Chevron would make it harder for the Executive branch to seize the powers of both Congress and the Supreme Court.  

How many times have our Presidents stated that they lacked power to do something, then "found a way" to go ahead nonetheless?

How often do laws get passed with estimated costs that are then grossly exceeded because of definitions selected by the administration?

Reversing the Chevron Doctrine would not preclude justices from being impressed by the arguments of Executive branch staff promoting their interpretation.  It would restore separation of powers among Congress, the Executive and the Supreme Court.

It is fine if Congress wants to rely upon Executive branch experts, but then the recommendations of those should come back to Congress to be voted upon.