>1) the executive is going to go full Andrew Jackson "They have made their ruling let them enforce it"
This is the only one I'll flat out say "no they wouldn't." Jackson's "overruling" only worked because both the federal government and the state of Georgia were in agreement that the Supreme Court could eat shit. If the Biden Administration overruled the supreme court in such a way today, it would only give power to Conservative states to ignore the federal government which would weaken their grip on power. It's a catch 22 where if they enforce the SCOTUS ruling they can maintain some
power, but if they ignore it, sure they get to act like bandits for a year or so, but then their behavior is used against them tenfold to start purging leftists from society and returning power to the states. The feds can't
go against SCOTUS on this one.
>2) Whatever is thrown out with Chevron deference will have to be replaced with either agency rules or Congress passing a law in regards on the amount of Chevron deference. That would then have to be litigated all the way back to SCOTUS again, guessing around 10 years.
Well yeah. They kind of laid out a "new framework" for how the Executive branch and Legislative branch must behave in their Sackett v. EPA ruling if they want to use vague terminology and language (essentially they can't). That's kind of the goal. Much like how Roe v Wade was meant to be a temporary injunction ruling until either congress or culture changed, this ruling is meant to be more of an "injunction on federal powers" until congress or culture changes. Government is supposed to be slow.
>3) The majority of appeals don't succeed, they'll just use harmless error as justification since judges are lazy bastards too.
Yes, but it's a lot easier to show maleficence in procedural error than in transferring jurisprudence to the Executive Branch. If a lower appeals court isn't careful then the procedural error itself can turn into activating the lawsuit.