You are oversimplifying. Generally speaking, most of the work of SCOTUS is reigning in the Executive because of overzealous regulators. The US regulatory framework is theoretically designed to be based in law, made by the legislature, not the whims of unelected bureaucracy.
Congress delegating it’s power is suspect at best, and likely unconstitutional entirely (something something, War Powers Act). Congress created the EPA through the power of the purse, but it’s operated by the Executive, and therefore is not and should not be empowered to unilaterally create regulations with the force of law. Making law is Congress’ job.
I agree and the executive branch has at least two major roles in the constitutional law-making process. First is the presidential veto, and second the Vice President in his or her office of President of the Senate can vote on bills from time to time.
I interpret your comment to mean you agree with this decision.
...yeah no, obviously not. The law has meaning and that meaning is stable. Words mean things. If you are stuck in "Anyone can interpret anything as anything else" land you have fallen prey to being too clever.
> Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
I suppose that may be a workable political system, but I'm not certain it will produce outcomes anyone will like.
This supreme court has been stomping the other branches of government.
Congress created the EPA. If they don't like what they created, it's on them to fix it.