Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Congress can’t write good laws (good = clean, unambiguous) due to a variety of reasons, most of which are just political and not practical reasons. A massive reason in this case is that congress are not matter experts, laws are already large and unwieldy, and agencies need flexibility in their work as, as ponderous as they are, they're still more nimble than congress and need that in order to react to changes in th…
>A massive reason in this case is that congress are not matter experts, Perhaps they should not be crafting new laws concerning things that they do not understand. If this results in fewer new laws, that may be better. If this also results in their having to spend more time doing homework on new urgent laws of greater importance, that may also be a good thing. A return to the Constitutional prescription that Congress…
Which is why instead of crafting new laws concerning things they do not understand, they appoint agencies for the purpose of understanding the things and regulating them.
> If this results in fewer new laws, that may be better.
It certainly does if you don't like your patent medicines being regulated.
> If this also results in their having to spend more time doing homework on new urgent laws of greater importance, that may also be a good thing.
This ruling will do the exact opposite at best. Again, the point of federal agencies is to take on the burden of understanding and regulating specific domains. That way congress can work on the broad strokes and leave the details to expert they can consult.
> A return to the Constitutional prescription that Congress writes the laws, the Executive administers them, and the Courts interpret them certainly does not seem inappropriate
That is not what this ruling does. This ruling is a decision by the courts that policy is decided by the courts. Even though congress delegates to executive agencies for that exact purpose.
Literally the first test of the Chevron doctrine is "does the law already cover this specific issue". The second test is "is the agency allowed to interpret or regulate this issue under its statutes".
If the first is a yes, then the agency has no grounds to go against congress. If the second is a no, then the agency does not have standing. Otherwise, the courts defer to the agency as the agent of congress on the matter.
> If it's a bandwidth issue, maybe we should up the number of judiciary and lower the number of extra-judicial agency bureaucrats.
That does not follow, makes absolutely no sense, and would in fact do the exact opposite. Because under the completely wacky idea that agencies have no rulemaking or regulatory powers they would have to be staffed by 90% lawyers as they would have to bring everything to court.
Again, against the express purpose of their establishment and statutes.