Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is as much a blow to chevron deference than anything. This is a good thing.
Why do you see a blow to the chevron deference doctrine as a good thing? I'd say that the doctrine properly tries to keep the supreme court, the least democratically responsible branch of US federal government, from being the most powerful of the three branches of government.
Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
111–120 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the US Congress passed an amendment that stated abortion is legal nationwide, then the Supreme Court would not be able to strike it down as that would be the new federal law.
Is a constitutional amendment different than a federal law when it comes to how it’s treated by the SCOTUS?
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a good thing that laws can't pass without sufficient consensus. If you can bypass consensus for the greater good then so can the other side.
The rise of China is testing and will continue to test this assumption. The Chinese government does not require consensus. It can build 40,000 kilometers of high speed rail in just a few years. It can pull hundreds of millions from poverty. It can shut down entire companies and industries overnight (e.g. private school tutoring), jail corrupt corporate executives, and in general coerce compliance to any law. Do you k…
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#114These guys are on a roll. Yesterday was giving states legal rights over indigenous nations. Today this. I was already planning to expat soon, but this all makes me want to try to hurry that timeline. Sorry to those of you that are stuck in this hellscape.
I'd like to caution other people who are feeling despondent and thinking of leaving that this is exactly what they want. They want you to give them your homes, your relationships, your friends, your resources, your job and everything you've cared about. So instead of being cynical and celebrating people who are abandoning ship, which I totally understand, we should instead spend time uniting people in opposition. Sta…
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Supreme Court is focused on laws, not outcomes - as it should be.
Indeed. People are upset with the Supreme Court recently, but what it has been doing is empowering democracy, which people are nominally for. You want effective standards, do the work and pass a law.
The scotus is still operating in this environment. I don’t see how “fuck it throwing you to the wolves” has any immediate or future benefits?
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#116These guys are on a roll. Yesterday was giving states legal rights over indigenous nations. Today this. I was already planning to expat soon, but this all makes me want to try to hurry that timeline. Sorry to those of you that are stuck in this hellscape.
I'd like to caution other people who are feeling despondent and thinking of leaving that this is exactly what they want. They want you to give them your homes, your relationships, your friends, your resources, your job and everything you've cared about. So instead of being cynical and celebrating people who are abandoning ship, which I totally understand, we should instead spend time uniting people in opposition. Sta…
Barring extreme circumstances‡, one should not moving from the country of one’s birth, but to the country of one’s choice. I emigrated from the U.S. two decades ago to Canada, because of the person who later became my wife—but I had to decide that I could live with Canada, too. Family aside, nothing in the U.S. either held me to America or was pushing me from America.
The process took almost two years, and it was almost five years before I got Canadian citizenship. As I understand it, it would take longer now.
My wife and I are considering moving to Europe or the U.K., but it would take time for this move to materialize, and we need to figure out what it is that we want (especially given our ages). Such a move is not likely to happen for two to five years at this point.
‡ There are exigent circumstances where it becomes safer to leave one country with little care for where one goes, as long as it isn’t worse. I fear with the extremists taking power legitimately and illegitimately and pushing toward their increasingly apartheid goals, there will be larger classes of people who could legitimately become refugees from America, especially if "liberal" states turn extremist—as they seem likely to do, since the divide here is (mostly old, mostly white) rural vs (mostly younger, mostly diverse) urban.
Sitting where I sit, I truly think that America is fucked, and am doing what little that I can to make sure that Canada does not follow in its footsteps, but we have our homegrown extremists whose crypto-christo-fascist messages are being treated with bemusement to respect, and even being promoted by fools like Poilievre.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#117I guess it's time for congress to actually pass laws (first abortion, and now greenhouse gasses). Going to be a lot of anger about the results this court season, but I honestly think it's going to be healthier for democracy overall if congress stop leaning on the courts and bureaucracy to make critical regulations.
The supreme court ruled that abortion is a state issue. Any law passed by congress would be struck down by the same ruling.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#118Earlier 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 do, they just need to make laws that EPA can enforce. Not let EPA to act on its own. Isn't everyone always talking about unelected burecrauts going against the will of the people?
populists are not 'everyone'
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#119What’s interesting about this ruling (if you listened to the oral arguments and read the ruling) is that it appears to undercut the ability for any executive agency to make a rule, under them claim that congress cannot delegate its powers. So the FAA can’t determine and then require that aircraft have transponders. Congress has to do this. If they continue down this path it will be chaos.
I don't agree it will be chaos. Congress has for far too long abdicated what it is supposed to be directly responsible for to unelected bureaucrats that exist in agencies that are overseen by the executive branch of government. Congress is now free to focused on creating chaos between the people that elect them. When is the last time you've seen anyone from Congress campaign on any substantive issue? I've not seen it…
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#120The fact that people can't see that the conservatives are basically advocating worldwide for short term economic growth in exchange for basically our future is appalling to me. I am afraid we will see an immense amount of instability, increased poverty, mass migrations and authoritarian regimes rising up due to the fact that we couldn't manage to convince people that those parties do not care about them. In a previou…
The Supreme Court is focused on laws, not outcomes - as it should be.