No, they ElimiNATED administrative rule making and private courts. This is far bigger than then EPA.
Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
401–410 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#402Emphasis 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…
I'd argue that one of the main drivers of climate change is this precise behavior: trying to alter the environment to be favorable towards the thing that I own. I see it on a micro level of people trying to kill insects that get into their gardens or moles that ruin their lawns, and a more macro level of my state/country has coal underneath it and therefore we shall fight to continue to use coal or even my state/coun…
This is it. Values lead to attitudes when they are directed at an object. Beliefs and attitudes are emotionally biased and largely inform behavior. Unfortunately, beliefs don't have to be correct or even coherent with other beliefs to be strongly held.
A person may value a coal mine for a variety of reasons that are very emotionally hinged: economic, familial, etc. To change behavior values and attitudes have to change. That's exceptionally difficult when the competing values, like climate, are more abstract than the ones currently held. I worry that humans are not psychologically equipped to manage problems of this scale.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#403It's time to de-sanctify the Supreme Court. I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority"-- it feels a bit gross in a democracy. I 'get it' w/ respect BrownvBoard, Miranda, etc, but at least in my lifetime the court hasn't done much to expand or protect my rights. Greatest hits from them are weird election cases (Florida 2000) making it easier for really shadowy/fuck…
>>I really don't like having this unelected councils of wizards who get wield god-like "authority" but you are OK with the 'unelected council of wizards' at the EPA wielding their god-like authority instead?
Congress delegated their authority to the EPA. Congress is empowered to retain that authority and they're empowered to overrule any EPA regulation they disagree with. Congress retains all the power.
When it comes to the Supreme Court - that's it. Congress can't do anything about Supreme Court rulings. Your comparison of the EPA to the Supreme Court is misguided.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#404Headlines about Supreme Court cases are almost uniformly misleading, because they suggest the Court is making decisions on policy issues rather than legal issues. 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 ov…
So the EPA is kneecapped since they have to go through the most ineffective and hyper partisan congress since the founding of the country.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#405PDF of the ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf As usual, it’s more nuanced than the headline.
Nobody in the comments is saying that the Supreme Court is wrong in the sense that the logic doesn’t follow. Of course it’s nuanced and up to interpretation, that’s why most decisions are split — and usually split on “conservative (do what I say) and liberal (do what I mean). The reason people are mad is because the court is relitigating long settled cases which breaks the main principle of the court which is don’t b…
>The reason people are mad is because the court is relitigating long settled cases which breaks the main principle of the court
A bad decision is a bad decision no matter how long it's been in effect. If anything, following "precedent" is what got us into this mess in the first place. We could have ripped the bandaid off decades ago on abortion and fixed it then. Now it's going to be much more messy.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That may even be "constitutionally" correct... but it makes the US completely incapable of operating in the modern world. The Constitution was designed to be amended to adapt to a changing world. Let's amend it! However, it is the role of the Supreme Court to apply what the Constitution DOES say, not decide what it SHOULD say.
how exactly do you propose finding the political will necessary to amend it?
Let’s not. Why would we? This is a victory for the little guy.
EDIT: downvoting me isn’t going to save administrative courts and rule making.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I want them to keep going, go all the way back to the one that started it all, Wickard
Reverse Wickard, and put the Federal Government back in its narrow scope
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way in which judges are brought to the bench in America and subsequently to SCOTUS is political. While it isn't Congress it isn't as independent as many people previously portrayed it.
As far as I can tell, the nonsense with Court appointments began back in the 80s, with the campaign against Reagan's nominee Robert Bork. Since then there's been a gradually ramping escalation of hostility from both sides. The GOP had to pay back the DEMs for the Bork thing, the DEMs try to smear Thomas, vetting of nominees is held up, then entirely withheld until the President leaves office, and so forth. The politi…
It’s not as if Bork was first. Haynsworth and Carswell were rejected by democrats for political reasons (leading to Blackmun being confirmed). Abe Fortas was rejected as Chief Justice by republicans.
And we can find many earlier examples as well.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#409It's not clear to me if the court has ruled broadly regarding delegation here (we still need experts to read through the entire ruling), but they've clearly indicated that they believe that delegation is not okay with them. Which basically means that this court will reduce the Federal government to a non-entity very soon, making its functioning absolutely impossible. That may even be "constitutionally" correct (altho…
No post body was provided.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#410Good. I have to say that, as an anti-authoritarian, conservative advocate of individual liberty, this last week has been extremely inspiring. To those who are confused about how the system in the US works: the court has basically decreased their own power with some of these decisions. That’s the type of thing that should give everybody, regardless of affiliation, hope about the future.
Making it easier for states to ban abortion is good for individual liberty?