301–310 of 1001 posts
I really don't understand the decision. In my mental model the executive branch exists to implement the laws that Congress passes, Congress deliberately leaves leeway in laws to give the executive branch flexibility, this flexibility has been previously affirmed by the court decision Chevron v. NRDC. This decision seems to give more power to Congress but on net I think it makes the laws Congress passes weaker because…
I 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.
I feel like a lot of people here would do well to try and understand the role of the Supreme Court, instead of treating it like a second version of Congress.
Folks: it's not within the Court's authority to decide what is a good idea and what is a bad idea. Their sole job is to interpret laws through the lens of the Constitution. The justices may well agree with your wishes of what Congress could do, but they see that the current laws of our nation won't allow Congress to do it, or at least not in that way.
But even if you believe that a given law is good - that women should have an inalienable right to an abortion, or that there should be tight controls on who can carry a weapon, or whatever - you've got to recognize that sometimes the Constitution does not give the government the power to make that happen. In such events, you can't claim that the Court is corrupt because the justices won't recognize the important of what you value.
Rather, you have to recognize that it's become your moral duty to alter the laws of the land to allow for what you seek. The Constitution's Article V is there precisely for this reason. Granted, it's a really high bar to clear, but there is a built-in mechanism for fixing any such bugs that we find in the Constitution.
I really don't understand the decision. In my mental model the executive branch exists to implement the laws that Congress passes, Congress deliberately leaves leeway in laws to give the executive branch flexibility, this flexibility has been previously affirmed by the court decision Chevron v. NRDC. This decision seems to give more power to Congress but on net I think it makes the laws Congress passes weaker because…
This is the crux of the problem. The "Executive branch" is basically the cops. That leeway lets the cops invent law, prosecute you, and potentially imprison you. There's another case where the executive branch effectively acted as the legislator, cops, and the judicial branch (they prosecuted someone for a rule they created and found them guilty, all internally).
Congress needs to do these things, via simple and explicit laws that are clear and easy to understand. The role of the executive is _enforcement_, while the judicial arbitrates.
The very first words of the opinion, on p. 2, make clear that the legal issue before the Court is very different: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
The Clean Air Act does not purport to give the EPA blanket regulatory authority over anything involving emissions into the air. It has detailed provisions focused on reducing the amount of toxic pollutants, in particular through the use of control (scrubbing) technologies. This case concerns whether the EPA can use its power to impose control technologies on power plants, to force the industry to use a particular mix of power generation sources (solar, gas, etc.). The Court decided that the statute did not confer on the EPA the power to do that. The relevant discussion begins on page 16.
This decision gives legs to something that has been called the "major questions doctrine." The gist of that doctrine is that an agency can't stretch some pre-existing grant of Congressional authority to create sweeping regulations addressing a major new problem. As applied here, that means that the EPA can't rely on authority delegated by Congress to, for example, tell coal plants what kind of scrubbers they have to use, to tackle climate change. pp. 17-19.
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…
and putting more pressure on countries like China and India
I really don't understand the decision. In my mental model the executive branch exists to implement the laws that Congress passes, Congress deliberately leaves leeway in laws to give the executive branch flexibility, this flexibility has been previously affirmed by the court decision Chevron v. NRDC. This decision seems to give more power to Congress but on net I think it makes the laws Congress passes weaker because…
That's not really how it works. If Congress wants the executive branch to have leeway then they need to explicitly grant it.
For all the consternation, these decisions are very mutable. Congress just needs to pass laws.
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.
It looks much less so if you turn off the news. I have a good life here, and I'm unconvinced it would be a net improvement to move to Europe. I enjoy visiting there, but it's not like they don't have their own problems.