I'm not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish at a high level? I mostly don't agree with the individual points and sentiment though, so for now I'll touch on a few of those.
1. Individuals don't revive the regular process. OP offered their opinions and took the time to write them well enough for us to form some of our own. Democracy, in its ideal form, measures a society of perfectly informed minds, each drawing on their own experience. Ours might not live up to that ideal, but calmly describing pros/cons in current policy doesn't seem like a bad move. It's also not mutually exclusive with voting the "right" people in.
2. Appointed judges deciding policy can absolutely be democratic. If we're allowed to be one step removed with a representative democracy, why not 2? It's a nuanced problem, not an ALL-CAPS emergency.
2a. Particular judges seem to currently be behaving badly with little recourse. Maybe we should fix that. Maybe Chevron is a smokescreen enabling that problem. If that's what's happening, we should call a spade a spade. Maybe in that case it's worth fighting the new Chevron decision as a stop-gap measure, but that's very different from arguing that it's a bad decision a priori.
3. We'll see what abuse happens (abuse always happens; most major laws are worth a retrospective to see what the 2nd order effects actually were), but the decision was, at face value, absolutely not about judges deciding policy. It was saying that when ambiguity requiring judging exists, a judge should resolve that ambiguity. That's not a God-given nugget of ethics, but it is stronger than you seem to be giving it credit for.
4. Somewhat unrelated, suppose an ideal world exists where this particular decision is revoked (posit the existence; I'm not currently arguing for the decision one way or the other). If the policy makes our country better in the next 1, 5, or 10 years, is it worth being held back just because we can imagine a hypothetical world with a better congress?
1. Individuals don't revive the regular process. OP offered their opinions and took the time to write them well enough for us to form some of our own. Democracy, in its ideal form, measures a society of perfectly informed minds, each drawing on their own experience. Ours might not live up to that ideal, but calmly describing pros/cons in current policy doesn't seem like a bad move. It's also not mutually exclusive with voting the "right" people in.
2. Appointed judges deciding policy can absolutely be democratic. If we're allowed to be one step removed with a representative democracy, why not 2? It's a nuanced problem, not an ALL-CAPS emergency.
2a. Particular judges seem to currently be behaving badly with little recourse. Maybe we should fix that. Maybe Chevron is a smokescreen enabling that problem. If that's what's happening, we should call a spade a spade. Maybe in that case it's worth fighting the new Chevron decision as a stop-gap measure, but that's very different from arguing that it's a bad decision a priori.
3. We'll see what abuse happens (abuse always happens; most major laws are worth a retrospective to see what the 2nd order effects actually were), but the decision was, at face value, absolutely not about judges deciding policy. It was saying that when ambiguity requiring judging exists, a judge should resolve that ambiguity. That's not a God-given nugget of ethics, but it is stronger than you seem to be giving it credit for.
4. Somewhat unrelated, suppose an ideal world exists where this particular decision is revoked (posit the existence; I'm not currently arguing for the decision one way or the other). If the policy makes our country better in the next 1, 5, or 10 years, is it worth being held back just because we can imagine a hypothetical world with a better congress?