501–510 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making it easier for states to ban abortion is good for individual liberty?
The court self limiting their own power, and pushing it down to an democratically elected body (the congress) is good for individual liberty.
Emphasis mine: > The case against the EPA was brought by West Virginia on behalf of 18 other mostly Republican-led states and some of the nation's largest coal companies. > > They were challenging whether the agency has the power to regulate planet-warming emissions for state-wide power sectors or just individual power plants. > > These 19 states were worried their power sectors would be regulated and they would be f…
This is why democracy is so hard: it consistently yields outcomes that are disappointing to a large segment of the population. There is no "solution" to that problem, and shouldn't be. There are pathways to curbing carbon emissions, but the reality is that too few people, as a body, want to pay that price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making it easier for states to ban abortion is good for individual liberty?
It also makes it easier for states to expand access to abortion, including expanding it up through the 3rd trimester. Just today, CA put a Constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to allow up to the final minute abortions. That ruling gave power back to the people and state legislatures. It benefit blue states as much as red.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That may even be "constitutionally" correct... but it makes the US completely incapable of operating in the modern world. The Constitution was designed to be amended to adapt to a changing world. Let's amend it! However, it is the role of the Supreme Court to apply what the Constitution DOES say, not decide what it SHOULD say.
The role of the court is whatever the hell it pleases. It is the court which gets the final word on what they should be. They do write opinions, but they might as well not since they answer to no one. No one can hold them accountable for blatantly contradicting themselves. They can very theoretically be impeached, but that's a 100% political process - it's equally (im)possible whether they're "fulfilling their role"…
The democratically elected Congress can pass new laws to overrule most SCOTUS decisions. A few decisions on constitutionality would require an amendment, but those are the exception.
So to recap: the SCOTUS has ruled that the agency established and authorized by Congress to regulate environmental protection does not have the authority to regulate environmental protection. Did I get that right?
It's not clear to me if the court has ruled broadly regarding delegation here (we still need experts to read through the entire ruling), but they've clearly indicated that they believe that delegation is not okay with them. Which basically means that this court will reduce the Federal government to a non-entity very soon, making its functioning absolutely impossible. That may even be "constitutionally" correct (altho…
Alternatively, there's always the opportunity to reappropriate Andrew Jackson for the modern era and say, "John Roberts made his decision, now let him enforce it." Were the country so inclined.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are limiting the ability of the government to make and enforce laws. The EPA is created with Congressional authority and is empowered to act on their behalf. Castrating the federal government will have negative repercussions. If the federal government doesn't have the power to control the states, then why bother having one?
>>They are limiting the ability of the government to make and enforce laws. They are in fact doing the exact opposite - telling elected officials that you need to make and enforce laws - not give that responsibility to someone else. Do you think the IRS should be able to set tax rates? then how is this different?
If Congress made a law that the IRS should have the power to set tax rates, then I'd be fine with them being able to set tax rates. Because I think that Congress should have the power to delegate a portion of their power, should they choose to.
This is a weird, and frankly idiotic ruling. Regulations are too complicated and numerous for Congress to decide on every single one. Have you ever read one? They go into excruciating detail about everything because they are written by experts. The best case outcome from this is that the new rules from agencies get tossed into some existing process so that they are rubber stamped, thus adding red tape.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is just nakedly partisan stuff going on. The problem is much of the left’s gains over the last few decades have been based on shaky legal/constitutional ground. Even leftist judges like Ginsberg admitted that, and they were counting on the mistakes being in place for too long to correct (precedent). Now all that technical debt is coming back to kick our ass. This isn’t the end of the world though, Congress can…
Reminder: decisions like Roe v. Wade (and many others in the era before this court) weren't passed by "the left" in a political sense. For example: five of the seven-justice majority in Roe were Republican appointees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this court will reduce the Federal government to a non-entity very soon This is an absurd take. All Congress needs to do is clarify that they’d like the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. That’s it. The laws regarding pollution control, many of which date back to the 1950s and 1960s, we’re not written with global warming in mind. So the court is saying the EPA needs to get permission from elected officials to regula…
> All Congress needs to do… And therein lies the problem. We know Congress is too deadlocked to be effective. Does the Court pushing back on them have a shot at getting the legislative branch to do their jobs?
How much of the republicans apparent desire to drive climate change off the cliff can be explained by religion and belief in the end of the world? Apparently 40% of americans believe in imminent end of times: https://www.christianpost.com/news/poll-4-in-10-americans-be...