'Buy a island': MAGA melt down after Barbra Streisand tackles Supreme Court case

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday overturning "Chevron deference" — a 40-year-old precedent that orders courts to defer to the expertise of agency employees when interpreting statute, which could make it easier for courts to strike down all manner of regulations across the entire federal government. Ironically, the original Chevron ruling was issued by conservative justices, to protect Ronald Reagan administration policymakers from being overruled by Jimmy Carter-appointed judges — but now with a far more Democratic-leaning administrative state, right-wing judges have been clamoring to take back power over the regulatory process for years.

The decision horrified many legal experts — and also renowned singer and actress Barbra Streisand, who took to X to condemn the ruling.

"The Supreme Court overruled 40 years of precedent and overturned the Chevron decision," wrote Streisand. "It makes judges and the Supreme Court the regulators of laws passed by Congress rather than the scientific expertise at federal agencies. This is not democracy but rule by judicial order. The only beneficiaries are big business and polluters."

ALSO READ: Rep. Byron Donalds, his gigantic Jim Crow myth and a forgotten fact about Black voters

A number of conservative commentators reacted angrily to her statement, including Mike Davis, a former clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the members of the majority to overturn Chevron.

"Our elected members of Congress pass laws," he wrote. "Our elected President enforces those laws. Our federal judges picked by our elected President and U.S. senators interpret those laws. That's how our constitutional republic is supposed to work. You want 'experts' to replace all that."

"You agree that we ought not rely on nine unelected people wearing black robes to write our laws?" wrote another right-wing commentator, @amuse. "That is the job of elected legislators. We need to ensure that democracy is maintained - not rule by unelected people. The court is designed to help determine what the law says not what the law is - that is the job of Congress."

@soncharm wrote, "Barbra Streisand really really cares about ‘Chevron’ now. Big issue for her. It’s so, so sad to me."

"Couldn’t she like buy a [sic] island. And live on the island. With servants. Forever. Why is she spending her time reading up on ‘Chevron’ and then ‘tweeting’ about it. Sad."

"The Nation" justice correspondent Elie Mystal said, "I did not have 'Barbra Streisand defends Chevron Deference' on my bingo card but, welcome it."

In practice, contrary to these assertions, a legal system without Chevron is unlikely to increase congressional power over the minutiae of how federal rules and procedures work, but judicial power instead, noted the three dissenting liberal justices — and this comes after some embarrassing mistakes from the Supreme Court in interpreting basic facts and information in their rulings, like Gorsuch confusing nitrogen oxide smog with laughing gas.