491–500 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can’t pass a law, too many climate change deniers in political positions. We’ll have to find other mechanisms to force coal plants offline. Lots of tools available besides the EPA.
"can't pass a law because I can't get enough voters to want it" Sounds like maybe you don't believe in democracy
Earlier 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.
Why, then, has no previous SC viewed its role in this way? Courts have historically always considered the intent of law (constitution) in addition to the word of law (constitution). Why isn't this one? It feels like this SC intends to use pedantry to hobble the federal government. But... why? Because they can?
> EPA argued that under the major questions of doctrine, a clear statement was necessary to conclude that Congress intended to delegate authority "of this breadth to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy." It found none. "Indeed," it concluded, given the text and structure of the statute, "Congress has directly spoken to this precise question and precluded" the use of measures such as generation shifting.
The problem here is that what most people here wish Congress intended to do isn't what Congress actually intended to do, because they couldn't build the political will to do it. I'm sympathetic to that view, but it's not the Supreme Court's job to fix Congress's deadlock.
So bizarre to see USA to be derailed like this, by Americans. Difficult to understand what the long game is. By hurting the country, who is benefiting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to know the actual motivation: The point is to limit the administrative state and move power to congress (as you said), because federal rule making is relatively open, and the administration has experts. If it moves to congress, they'll just take the legislation lobbyists hand them and pass it, because they don't have the expertise to actually write technical regulations. This is a win for industry.
Congress doesn't remotely have the bandwidth to explicitly write out and decide all the little rules it takes to regulate the country, even if they had a clue what they were doing in each case It's pretty clearly designed to dismantle the federal regulatory apparatus
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of federal law isn't mentioned in the constitution. Come on now.
Stop being obtuse. The majority of federal law exists only because broad interpretations of the few subjects the feds were granted the ability to regulate. If abortion was intertwined with interstate commerce or national defense it would be regulated. Of course there's BS that's just as detached as abortion that gets regulated federally but if those subjects were big ideological issues and got the same scrutiny they…
There's still precedent and federal law that protects bodily autonomy in respect to having private medial exchanges with doctors.
We still have the FACE act for example, which is federal law preventing people from blocking the entrance of abortion clinics.
I think we'll find quite soon how much abortion is intertwined with interstate commerce.
The theme this session has been the court pushing lots of decisions back to congress, away from the executive, and away from the court itself. For all the consternation, these decisions are very mutable. Congress just needs to pass laws.
That's true in this case. It's not true in Bruen or Dobbs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>This is a massive blow to the US being able to reach emissions targets. Whose targets though? 'Shouldn't we the people' have a say? i.e. shouldn't congress actually hold the hearings, digest the info and go on the record voting for or against important items? We don't let the IRS set tax rates, we should not let unelected bureaucrats decide what the environmental goals are - elect people you think represent your pr…
Again, congress has had 30 YEARS to do something. They've done nothing . I'm long past the point of assuming ignorance and incompetence, much of congress is clearly acting in bad faith on this issue because they are beholden to the fossil fuel companies. Want 'We the People' to have a say in whether or not the EPA should regulate CO2? Put it to a national referendum. Congress has shown repeatedly that it's more than…
Earlier 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.
The role of the court is whatever the hell it pleases. It is the court which gets the final word on what they should be. They do write opinions, but they might as well not since they answer to no one. No one can hold them accountable for blatantly contradicting themselves. They can very theoretically be impeached, but that's a 100% political process - it's equally (im)possible whether they're "fulfilling their role"…
The theme this session has been the court pushing lots of decisions back to congress, away from the executive, and away from the court itself. For all the consternation, these decisions are very mutable. Congress just needs to pass laws.
That's true in this case. It's not true in Bruen or Dobbs.
You are correct however on Bruen limiting the power of congress and the states.
Earlier 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.
> let’s amend it! Lol good luck with that. Zero chance 3/4 of the states agree on literally anything. The culture wars are in full swing, owning the other side is more important than being effective.