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…
Stop saying g 'the left'. There is no 'the left' in us politics. >This isn’t the end of the world though, Congress can fix everything that’s happened in the last few weeks via proper laws. No, this us pretty much what the end of the world looks like.
Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
381–390 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#383Earlier 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.
> 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…
If you don't think they'll call any regulation (or enumeration of rights) they don't like unconstitutional, I don't know what to tell you.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#384I 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.
Major "code smell" right here
> Right now, the corporate legacy media are working hard to paint the false narrative that the current conservative justices are extreme partisan hacks
Well they are, and I don't need "muh mainstream media" to tell me about it. I can draw that conclusion based on primary sources, i.e. the court opinions, the justices' own words and actions, etc.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, as I understand it, the EPA was declaring they had authority to enforce some new rules by interpreting where congress wrote "may" as "must". Whether you agree with the EPA's motives or not, it should concern everyone that un-elected bureaucrats have been increasingly inventing or hallucinating the language of their mandates to turn them into whatever they wanted, whenever it suits them, and this was a m…
>In this case, as I understand it, the EPA was declaring they had authority to enforce some new rules by interpreting where congress wrote "may" as "must". Congress didn't pass a law and disappear. If Congress felt that the EPA was misinterpreting the language of the Clean Air Act it could have passed a law limiting the agency's powers. The fact that it did not do so is the strongest rebuttal to the claim that the EP…
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#386I 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.
Recent history shows us many examples of SCOTUS saying "the Constitution doesn't let you do this", and people being up in arms crying "but the thing you just struck down is necessary". 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…
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#387Emphasis 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…
Well the fix here is for Congress to pass a specific law empowering the EPA with explicit authority. If something like that can't make it through congress then it isn't democratic, and the task then becomes one of convincing the other side. I've the had the anti-coal conversation with plenty of conservatives and they were all open to my point of view. Ultimately this court's decision is a win for democracy, even if i…
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
if that's your goal, then we should be investing in nuclear energy and putting more pressure on countries like China and India
Nuclear and solar and wind and hydro. But that whole business of singling out India and China is BS. If China was split up into 10 smaller countries that together emitted the same amount in aggregate, those 10 smaller countries would fly under the radar. It's only because China happens to be a single country that people point the finger. Per-capita emissions is the thing to be focusing on.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#389Earlier 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…
Stop saying g 'the left'. There is no 'the left' in us politics. >This isn’t the end of the world though, Congress can fix everything that’s happened in the last few weeks via proper laws. No, this us pretty much what the end of the world looks like.
Taken as a relative claim, it at least could make sense. But relative to what?
Relative to the US? False; both parties usually get about half of the vote, suggesting one is to the right of the median American, and the other to their left. You can probably argue that the Republican Party’s structural advantages cause both parties to be a little to the right of where they’d be without them, or that Americans’ ignorance of party platforms means you can smuggle a few points in that are slightly more extreme than what they’d endorse, but it’s going to be a small effect.
- https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/against-there-are-two-...
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's still very much an open question as to whether congress is allowed to abdicate its power of rule making to the executive branch. The constitution seems to imply that the answer is "no," but the past interpretations of it say "yes." Chevron is a younger precedent than Roe.
You say abdicate. Not true.
Congress is obviously empowered to delegate.
Please be specific. Who (written where?) thinks this is an open question? Please cite evidence of this.