I don't agree with overruling Chevron but saying "if they are going to try and override Chevron from the bench without legislation, then we have to ignore them" makes no sense because Chevron was not made by legislation in the first place. It was made by SCOTUS. It comes from the case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
I'm pretty sure Chevron deference includes some deferred powers of congress to presidential administrative agencies. Which is what I'm referring to here. I could be wrong about that.
But the rules I'm thinking of are more about Roe V. Wade, which don't make sense in their interpretation of the laws.
It also goes to the heart of the arbitrariness of the rulings if they can overturn previous precedent 'just because they want to' which is a lot of the logic of the rulings.
Brown v. Board is famous for not just overturning the precedent, but for giving a reasonable understanding of the precedent was meaningfully unfair in the previous setup.
