That's not right either, you're both wrong. Federal agencies are still allowed to make up regulations not explicitly found in the letter of the law, and courts are allowed to strike down those regulation if they think they're too far outside the spirit of the law. It works the same for both parties, not the nonsense you said.
The composition of the court is subject to change, as always. In any case the court made Chevron Deference so it can obviously unmake it. Congress is free to amend the Constitution to change the rules, of there is a political consensus, which there isn't.
> It works the same for both parties, not the nonsense you said.
So we aren't actually wrong because it does not, in fact, work the same for both parties. The composition of the court right this moment is such that Republicans win and democrats lose. Divorced of what the law or prior precedence dictates.
You are right, congress can make changes to the court. But don't pretend like the law is being evenly or fairly applied without regard for the underlying politics.
> It works the same for both parties, not the nonsense you said.
One party has 6 supreme Court justices on the bench who we now know are explicitly working to further Republican causes [1]. The conservative supreme court is making rulings before hearing cases or reviewing evidence/decisions. They aren't interested in legal analysis which was clear with the trump immunity ruling.
So no, not "the same".
[1] https://theweek.com/politics/supreme-court-roberts-maga