It's probably worth noting that "someone who has litigated Chevron cases" and presumably will litigate again has a real bias to look supportive of the supreme court (or any judge who could decide his cases).
For the rest of us, whether you agree with the outcome of decision or not, it overturns a 40 year old precedent which is:
* old enough that several congresses have had a chance to clarify any older laws and have made new laws with it on the books
* not so old that it's obviously from a different era and doesn't make sense today
* and always icky from a stare decisis perspective
fwiw, from a HN perspective, I'm mostly interested in how the SC works as a process with politics aside.
For the rest of us, whether you agree with the outcome of decision or not, it overturns a 40 year old precedent which is:
* old enough that several congresses have had a chance to clarify any older laws and have made new laws with it on the books
* not so old that it's obviously from a different era and doesn't make sense today
* and always icky from a stare decisis perspective
fwiw, from a HN perspective, I'm mostly interested in how the SC works as a process with politics aside.