This decision seems largely irrelevant to me, because the Democrats with their majority and White House could pass new legislation next week to authorize the EPA to do what it needs to do.
Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
351–360 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm old enough to remember when I could grudgingly accept that there was some wisdom in decisions I disagreed with, even if perhaps not enough to sway me. But I could see something argued intelligently. This is just nakedly partisan stuff going on. I think viewing it through that lens - "we're going to do what we want because it fits our politics" - makes the most sense.
Which is ironic since FDR most of the Court decisions were nakedly partisan in the other direction, massively expanding the power and scope of the federal government well beyond would should be constitutionally allowable
Let’s have some consistency at least. Bring back both Roe and Lochner.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#353I 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…
Quoted post unavailable.
I see that you haven't let facts get in the way of a good theory.
I don't think you've read the dissenting arguments yet.
The core of this case is how do you interpret legislative text. The current Court is taking a radically strict view of legislation. They act like they are only reading the words. But in fact everyone has to interpret written words somehow. The question is what context do you use when you interpret the words.
Also keep in mind how the conservative justices were picked. Even if the justices truly decide cases based on non-partisan judicial ideologies (doubtful), the composition of the court has been picked in such a way that their decisions have conservative outcomes written all over them.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#354I 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…
Congress won't act, the Executive isn't permitted to do much even with what they were given by Congress, and the People are powerless to do anything unless 100% of them vote, which never happens, and even then may be overruled in many places. No future for any of us I guess.
> Congress won't act
Under a legal constitutional system, when Congress "won't act", the laws stay the same as they were.
The Executive branch taking unilateral action beyond its authority because the Legislative branch "won't act" scares me even more, for the long-term health of our democracy, than laws staying the same as they are now for a bit longer.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#355owning the supreme court was the republicans trump card, the Presidency is only a pit stop toward the true goal. Got it for a life time now don't they? Got to hand it to them, smart long term planning
there are a lot of lesson so be had...
just a few...
- long term planning of the gop vs short term tactics of dems
- justices staying on too long until it was too late
- bad (tone-deaf) campaigning for prez lost 3 seats on the sc
- ignoring rural and working-class (used to be the dems bread and butter) dissolved their base of support (clinton and the "new" dems)
- relying on the sc for too many rulings... next we loose gay marriage and probably interracial marriage in many states.....
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#356I 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.
> instead of treating it like a second version of Congress. what do you mean specifically?
The SCOTUS is a political battleground where Federal laws can be passed as jurisprudence on the interpretation of the US Constitution, circumventing the legislative process.
Instead of laws on reproductive rights, you had a ruling even detailing the time frames in which abortion was legal.
Instead of legalizing gay marriage, you have a ruling on the federal recognition of licenses issued in individual states.
Instead of a law on lobbying, you have a ruling saying that monetary contributions to campaigns are the free speech of lobbying groups.
Instead of an organic law on weapons permits, you have a ruling saying what kinds of firearm regulations states can pass.
But people can't say this politicization of the SCOTUS is new; back when the hot topic were worker rights, in the early XX century, those were the battles being fought there, to skip Congressional debates:
https://reason.com/2021/12/02/the-laissez-faire-origins-of-t...
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really how it works. If Congress wants the executive branch to have leeway then they need to explicitly grant it.
The dissent indicates the power is already explicitly granted in the EPA statute plain as day. It really isn't clear to me what language would satisfy the majority.
“The EPA may regulate carbon emissions” would do the trick.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#358These 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.
-- America began the process of un-uniting quite some time ago - it's unsurprising that the supreme court is reflecting that - curious what Americans here think about this? - much of the country is trending towards "live in the state that you're comfortable in" - seems somewhat reasonable? --
> live in the state that you're comfortable in
That's a pipe dream. The division is urban-vs-rural, not state-vs-state. What is now a red state will inexorably become blue as people flock to it. Rinse and repeat.
America has been through divisive times in the past. We'll survive. I think what's notable now is that it's been so damn peaceful for most of our lives that this looks like unprecedented tribalism.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#359I 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…
Quoted post unavailable.
> decisions of vast “‘economic and political significance."
How is "economic and political significance" defined? From what I understand of the decision, it's defined as "6 of 9 people on SCOTUS don't like this regulation." And the deeper you dig into it, the more you find that these 6 people are willing to throw out just to be able to strike down this policy decision.
Supposedly, these 6 justices are advocates of textualism--the actual text, as written in the statute, should be dominant in the analysis of what can and can't be done in terms of interpretation. And here they completely ignore that in favor of trying to second-guess what Congress intended because... they can't use textualism to achieve what they want, I guess.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#360These 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…
> We should instead spend time uniting people in opposition. Stay where you are and fight.
That is definitely one approach, and one I'm hoping to see through. But simultaneously you have to acknowledge that there could come a point where it's time to jump ship. That point is going to be different for everyone. Recent events have pushed some past that point. That doesn't seem hard to grasp.
> It's mind-blowing that people won't engage in trying to actually do something, even something as simple as helping a campaign, or donating money...
Have you been paying attention? People in this country have been more engaged over the last few years than at any point in my lifetime, and at this point the ship is still sinking.
Every time there is a school shooting, there is outrage and no change. Proud boys terrorize another fucking library event, and there aren't even reports of a single arrest. Women's rights being slaughtered and we get to hear how we need to vote. Another hearing laying out the obvious coup attempt on Jan 6th, and no action taken but another news headline.
This is just a snippet of the last ~30 days. 1 short month. I don't argue that it's my country. My country just looks like a real shithole lately.
> but instead they're like "well I'm going to just give up and spend all this time and effort moving to some other country where I also won't uphold any civic responsibility".
This is such a weird take. Consider employment. You can join a startup, work your ass off, cross your fingers, and hope for that big payday. High risk, high reward. Alternatively, you can join a mature company, collect a comfortable paycheck and moderately help to steer the bigger ship.
Right now, the US is looking like that startup. You can work your ass off, and it may give you a great payoff in the form of opportunity. But it's looking increasingly like it's going to fail. Alternatively, you can move somewhere that has all the big stuff in order, and you get to work on the small stuff that still has effect while not worrying as much about whether you're one injury away from bankruptcy.
Who knows? Maybe if we vote harder it'll turn around. At this point, I'm inclined to believe it's cultural. We barely voted out an insurrectionist. 48% of the country voted to keep that in play. This country is full of people who are actively encouraging someone to overthrow our government. 48%.