Are they not allowed to bring in the relevant agencies experts to help them write the laws?
I guess the main concern would be congress being overly "politicized" (especially right now) and so things would be a bit slower to take effect if everything that pops up becomes a partisan talking point.
But government agencies are also pretty "politicized" too, with agency policy directions flip flopping based on who wins presidential and/or midterm elections.
Maybe I'm too optimistic that this could be a forcing function for people to elect more reasonable people.
At least there's some delay, and all current agency rulings will remain in place until challenged, and even then stand somewhat decent odds of remaining in effect. Maybe it'll be a brexit-like situation where people start to realize it was maybe a step too far, and a more well-defined and robust version of chevron will eventually return? Who knows
To clarify, this is a scope problem. 23 agencies each with thousands of regulations that apply to millions of companies, all up for question and challenge at the same time.
Bringing in the agencies will not change the scope of the problem.
And the real issue, IMO, is that while we're waiting (either on congress or the courts) companies can get away with not following regulations which are currently being questioned (via injunctions granted by politicized judges).
Judges too are unelected and selected by politicians. And they don't have to worry nearly as much about their job, which creates its own issues. There's a reason term limits exist.
