71–80 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The supreme court ruled that abortion is a state issue. Any law passed by congress would be struck down by the same ruling.
If the US Congress passed an amendment that stated abortion is legal nationwide, then the Supreme Court would not be able to strike it down as that would be the new federal law.
Major questions doctrine. They ruled that the current law does not empower EPA to require producers to shift generation to different methods (e.g. natural gas, renewables), and that if Congress had meant for the law to do that, they would have written it explicitly. Congress can still pass a law empowering EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
What the government should do about climate change should be decided by legislation agreed upon by the President and Congress, not by an administrative agency.
It is common and reasonable for legislation to delegate responsibility. Administrative rulemaking has been around for a long time and will continue to exist.
The fact that people can't see that the conservatives are basically advocating worldwide for short term economic growth in exchange for basically our future is appalling to me. I am afraid we will see an immense amount of instability, increased poverty, mass migrations and authoritarian regimes rising up due to the fact that we couldn't manage to convince people that those parties do not care about them. In a previou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is as much a blow to chevron deference than anything. This is a good thing.
Why do you see a blow to the chevron deference doctrine as a good thing? I'd say that the doctrine properly tries to keep the supreme court, the least democratically responsible branch of US federal government, from being the most powerful of the three branches of government.
By pushing the responsibility to lifelong bureaucrats? I honestly don't see a difference there.
from the dissent (starting on page 57): The effect of the Court’s order, followed by the Trump administration’s re- peal of the rule, was that the Clean Power Plan never went into effect. The ensuing years, though, proved the Plan’s moderation. Market forces alone caused the power industry to meet the Plan’s nationwide emissions target—through exactly the kinds of generation shifting the Plan contem- plated. See 84 F…
The modern day supreme court is a joke, unable to be even remotely consistent in how it applies its rationale and its clear they're merely another puppet for conservative politics.
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.
How can anyone say that with a straight face in the presence of the electoral college (heck even the elected representatives don't have a legal obligation to vote for their party's candidate) and most importantly gerrymandering. Your assumption that the people can vote to enact change is simply not true.
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.
Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution and therefore each state has the power to legislate it as they see fit. Any federal abortion law would be deemed unconstitutional on that basis.
What the government should do about climate change should be decided by legislation agreed upon by the President and Congress, not by an administrative agency.
Maybe they could create an agency for the protection of the environment and delegate some authority to it.
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/fucked organizations to plow $$$ into elections.
If these folks are indeed just umpires & good old legal "scholars" who are there to call balls & strikes, why are hundreds of millions dollars spent promoting + grooming these individuals?
Going forward I'm very much in favor of subtle "judicial humiliation"-- across the board de-sanctify this institution
Step 0-- make 'em take C-SPAN cameras