SCOTUS overturning Chevron really brought up the Left's stuff, didn't it?

 The actual case that was before the court:

Atlantic herring fishermen sued over federal rules requiring them to pay for independent observers to monitor their catch. The fishermen argued that the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not authorize officials to create industry-funded monitoring requirements and that the National Marine Fisheries Service failed to follow proper rulemaking procedure.

In two related cases, the fishermen asked the court to overturn the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which stems from a unanimous Supreme Court case involving the energy giant in a dispute over the Clean Air Act. That ruling said judges should defer to the executive branch when laws passed by Congress are ambiguous.

Okay, now for some play-by-play commentary. The reason the Chevron case, and subsequent doctrine, needed to be overturned is that the onus for ambiguity need to be on Congress. Write laws with more clarity. That's what we hire you to do. 

Consider the wording that AP has chosen to frame the impact:

With a closely divided Congress, presidential administrations have increasingly turned to federal regulation to implement policy changes. Federal rules impact virtually every aspect of everyday life, from the food we eat and the cars we drive to the air we breathe and homes we live in.

I did the boldfacing. The damn sentence is just presented as something that ought to be taken as a given in "modern life." And that's horrifying.

Look, I'm no Lew Rockwell, but one doesn't have to be to be incensed at this framing. Us actual conservatives are Frank Meyer fusionists. Freedom to chose the cars we drive, the homes we live in, and the food we eat is of a seamless piece with a fealty to tradition and an insistence on a morality-driven policy orientation informed by a transcendent order. When such choices are taken out of our hands by the entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, our ability to value our agency as individuals withers and we become cattle.

Here's a lady who's absolutely aghast about the matter:

“This case was never just about fish,’' said Meredith Moore of the environmental group Ocean Conservancy. Instead, businesses and other interest groups used the herring fishery “to attack the foundations of the public agencies that serve the American public and conserve our natural resources,’' she said.

 "Serve the American public." Get the paternalistic tone there? The pointy-heads know how we need to be "served," and they don't need your input.

But if you want to see some really apoplectic reaction to the recent decision, there's this post at Public Notice, a Substack that has a palpable aversion to freedom. It's titled "The Destruction of the Regulatory State Is Already Happening." 

Check out the opening paragraph. The boldface is once again mine:

It’s been barely a week since conservatives on the US Supreme Court radically upended the balance of power between the branches of government, giving the federal courts the exclusive power to interpret statutes rather than deferring to agency experts. And we’re already seeing impacts on the ground.

Rexford Tugwell and Frances Perkins, call your offices! 

There's a section of the post that author Lisa Needham calls "Bigotry From the Bench" that gets to the heart of what has her howling like a coyote with its leg caught in a trap:

Unsurprisingly, much of the assault on administration rules relates to any regulation that would protect transgender people. 

Four days after Loper Bright was handed down, another Trump appointee, Judge John W. Broomes in Kansas, enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing its Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs rule in Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming. The Department of Education spent two years finalizing the rule, which would have prohibited discrimination based on gender identity under Title IX. 

The unofficial text of the rule, which runs 1,577 pages with supporting material, is jam-packed with legal analysis. Hundreds of pages are spent explaining how the DOE considered and addressed public comments and the document details the mental health impact of discrimination against LGBTQ students. 

 Broomes’s expertise is in natural resource law, a background that does not lend itself to a detailed understanding of Title IX, sex discrimination, or gender identity. But none of that matters. 

His opinion sneers about “self-professed and potentially ever-changing gender identity” and insists that things like using correct pronouns for students and allowing them to use the bathroom that conforms with their gender identity is an issue of “vast economic” significance. Given that the only costs of the rule are things like updated administrative guidance and perhaps hiring additional Title IX staff, the idea it is a vast economic question is, to put it politely, a reach. Instead, Broomes sided with the conservative plaintiffs, including Moms for Liberty and an Oklahoma student who asserted that using the correct pronouns for other students violated her religious beliefs.  

Because of this mix of conservative state litigants, private anti-trans groups, and an Oklahoma student, the extent of Broomes’s injunction is even weirder than the patchwork blocking of the HHS rule. 

Besides blocking the rule entirely in four states, the rule is also blocked for the schools attended by the members of two private plaintiffs, Young America’s Foundation and Female Athletes United, and all schools attended by the children of members of Moms for Liberty. So now, if you are a transgender student unlucky enough to attend school anywhere in the country where a child of a Moms for Liberty student also attends, you’re out of luck. If your school is free of children of book-banners, you get the protection of the federal rule — unless you live in Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, in which case it doesn’t matter what school you go to. 

On full display here is the Left's refusal to address the fact that, until ten years ago at the outside, no culture in human history had ever codified a demographic called "transgender," as well as an assumption that human beings can invent themselves with no acknowledgement of a divine architecture to the universe.   

The Left is demonstrating (once again) that its core principle is a hatred of human liberty.

That's nothing new, but the problem is exacerbated by the fact that the Trumpist Right can't even remember what the term "core principles" means.