Supremes overturn 1984 "Chevron deference" to federal agencies, forcing Congress to either give teeth to regulatory ambiguities and so pay the political consequences they otherwise avoided, or defer to judges deciding for them from now on

 

 My guess is they'll tend more to let the judges decide, because Congress is, in fact, timid, lazy, phony, tiny, and small, same as Obama.

It's complicated, but it's a good thing because it restores accountability to the political sphere. No one elects the agencies. But that will cut both ways, seeing how politicized the judiciary has become.

It's also a BFD. The New York Times is in a panic over it.

An attorney for the commercial fishermen said Chevron deference "incentivizes a dynamic where Congress does far less than the Framers (of the U.S. Constitution) anticipated, and the executive branch is left to do far more by deciding controversial issues via regulatory fiat."

 

More.

Robert Samuelson: Obama Is Timid, Lazy, Phony, Tiny and Small

"Timid, lazy, phony, tiny and small" doesn't quite have the same ring as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", but you never know, it might catch on.

Here:

There is something profoundly timid about President Obama's proposed $3.778 trillion budget for 2014. ... [T]he budget is a status-quo document. It lets existing trends and policies run their course, meaning that Obama would allow higher spending on the elderly to overwhelm most other government programs. This is not "liberal" or "conservative" so much as politically expedient and lazy. ...

Obama remains unwilling to grapple with basic questions posed by an aging population, high health costs and persistent deficits. Why shouldn't programs for the elderly be overhauled to reflect longer life expectancy and growing wealth among retirees? Shouldn't we have a debate on the size and role of government, eliminating low-value programs and raising taxes to cover the rest? The "spin" given by the White House -- and accepted by much of the media -- is that the president is doing precisely this by putting coveted "entitlement" spending on the bargaining table.

It's phony. Compared with the size of the problem, Obama's proposals are tiny. The much-discussed shift in the inflation adjustment for Social Security benefits to the "chained" consumer price index would save $130 billion over a decade; that's about 1 percent of projected Social Security spending of $11.23 trillion over the same period. ...

The work of politics is persuasion. It is orchestrating desirable, though unpopular, changes. (Popular changes don't require much work.) . . . Already, his small proposed cuts in Social Security benefits have outraged much of the liberal base.

So Obama has taken a pass. He has chosen the lazy way out. He's evading basic choices while claiming he's bold and brave. ...