281–290 of 1001 posts
Earlier 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.
So you want for women to have their basic rights for us to go through a constitutional amendment path? Interesting. This feels like fascism through paperwork.
> 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 forced to move away from using coal.
I'm losing hope that anything practical can be achieved because of idealistic nuance like this. We're missing the forest for the trees. Our goal should be the larger combating of climate change, but individual players like this have amazing power to put up resistance or obstruction to that goal which is a net loss for all of us.
It has implications for other things too. For example, the post office. How about 50 individual post offices instead of a national post office since now logically the price of a stamp cannot be adjusted unless Congress votes on it, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is correct. Congress can definitely delegate its power, they are just saying that Congress didn't delegate the power the EPA is trying to use in this case. From the final paragraph of the opinion: "But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an…
How do you write an entire opinion about delegation without mentioning Chevron ? As the dissent points out, that delegation is inherently required to do the EPA's job and the court has previously accepted their technical and policy expertise in this area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The senate is affirmative action for rural areas. Why do we accept minority rule?
B/c the US is a union. I live in a rural area. There are plenty of laws that make sense for my area that would be ridiculous in high density cities and vise verse. Here there is no minimum speed limit and I can drive my tractor down the road by attaching an orange triangle. I can drill my own well. I can chop and burn trees on my property. None if thus would make sense in the city.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's too complicated for most people. Although it does pain me to see people using their energy so ineffectively. Protester: "6 unelected officials can't decide what I can do!" Supreme Court: "That's literally what we just said!" If Congress punts issues around indefinitely for its own political wheeling and dealing, it still cannot outsource a decision on those issues to other branches of the federal government. W…
But then it’s all very self-contradictory. How are people supposed to have faith in the court when it makes a decision, reaffirms it many times over nearly 50 years, then just changes its mind on a dime? The judicial branch has a responsibility to itself for self-consistent reasoning, which it has completely abandoned this term. The court is not supposed to change dramatically with every election, that’s what the leg…
SCOTUS leaned liberal (in the sense that liberal justices tend to believe in larger-scope interpretations of Constitution) for a long time, now for the first time in a while they're leaning conservative (the Constitution says what it says and if we want it to say something different Congress should pass an amendment).
Honestly I find myself falling into the more Conservative camp from a judicial perspective. I'm all for gay marriage and a woman's right to choose, but I feel like we used SCOTUS to do an end-run around Congress to get both at a federal level, and from my layperson's reading the constitutional justifications for both feel stretched to me. In the same sense that you can use creative interpretations of the Bible to justify basically anything, you can do similar things with the Constitution. That isn't how the system is supposed to work
These 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 agree with "congress cannot delegate it's powers" to a certain extent. Negative example: The BATF has a splendid history of literally doing nothing except putting it's critics behind bars, while solving 0 actual crime and preventing any sort of mass tradgedies. Positive example: The FAA has done an incredible job making air-travel safer than car travel. I have a feeling that a lot of the higher-ups are former engin…
Going to hit the wall and let the corporate decide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Protester: "6 unelected officials can't decide what I can do!" > Supreme Court: "That's literally what we just said!" Bullshit. The court was perfectly happy telling millions of people they had no right to an abortion. They’re just a bunch of partisan hacks
>The court was perfectly happy telling millions of people they had no right to an abortion. This is not what happened at all. They ruled against the federal government's ability to regulate it.
None of this had anything to do with the federal government regulating it. It was the court saying it was a right not to be infringed upon.