You seem to be under the impression that this generation of courts holds itself to a set of principles, rather than just motivated reasoning to do whatever they want. There will be no consistency. The Chevron decision will matter when they want it to and it won't when they don't.
Respectfully disagree. I would argue that the court has been fairly consistent - in nearly every case they have sided against federal organizations in favor of states, with a couple of exceptions where they held constitutional questions.
It is easily arguable that this court is more consistent than previous courts. Like them or not, decisions like Sebelius and Obergefell were based on much, much more wild interpretations of constitutionality ("legalistic argle-bargle") and were much more driven by a court using the ends to justify the means.
SCOTUS has been ignoring or re-interpreting precident when convinent for advancing conservative agenda items. If it advances the cause, the lawsuits will go the way they prefer, not with any consistency for established precident.
Respectfully,
This doesnt track with what we are seeing in very-recent history.
SCOTUS is broadly drawing criticism for picking and choosing winners and losers.
We cannot expect there to be any consistency anymore when the only means of determining legal success looks to be whoever is favored by the most powerful judge in the room.
