Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions

Post by gumby » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 6:41 PM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #234

gumby wrote: post #24

What’s interesting about this ruling (if you listened to the oral arguments and read the ruling) is that it appears to undercut the ability for any executive agency to make a rule, under them claim that congress cannot delegate its powers. So the FAA can’t determine and then require that aircraft have transponders. Congress has to do this. If they continue down this path it will be chaos.

I read this differently (and am a former lawyer who worked on administrative law). This is about the "major questions doctrine", which involves a subset of administrative actions. It's not about whether administrative agencies can do anything whatsoever. > Under this body of law, known as the major questions doctrine, given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the…

Post by iostream24 » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 6:45 PM UTC

efitz wrote: post #808

DFHippie wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if the Congress wants EPA to regulate emissions the way they tried to do, all it needs to do is to pass a law explicitly instructing it to do so. Of course, it won’t, because there is no political will in Congress to pass this. This doesn't accurately represent the present situation on this or really any topic. It makes is sound like members of Congress simply don't care. Unless the filibuster is removed or reforme…

In my mind all this means that things are working as intended. The Constitution was set up to limit what the federal government can do, and the Congress (particularly the senate) was set up to make it hard to do things that did not have significant support over and above a simple majority. FDR set up a bureaucratic state to try to get around this, but it’s not what the constitution envisioned. I for one am happy that…

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 6:46 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #825

joshstrange wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the idea of the SC kicking things back to congress and that would be well and good if we didn't have minority rule in this country coupled with the outsized power that land has over people. On top of that we have a disgusting high rep->citizen ratio because of a silly law congress passed capping it's size. Throw in gerrymandering and election boards rejecting results of elections (and things like Jan 6th…

Democrats need to shake this notion that Republicans represent "minority rule" because it both delegitimizes our institutions and goads Democrats into overplaying their hand. Republicans won almost 1.5 million more total votes in 2016 for the House, the country's primary law-making body: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Re... . They are on pace to win the House again in 2022 by millions of vo…

Post by hellojesus » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 6:50 PM UTC

iostream24 wrote: post #861

philwelch wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of justices on the current Supreme Court have been doing a good job of sticking to the law rather than attempting to enact policy. What you’re describing is a good criticism of the mid-20th century Supreme Court, but the current Court has done a good job of rolling back those excesses.

I strongly disagree. I see this current court having extremely low legitimacy engaged in naked power grabs: In one session they’ve removed the ability to sue over Miranda rights, stricken down a fifty year precedent and told a state that they can’t enact their own concealed carry act. I don’t doubt that you will claim that these actions are the logical course of originalism in its purest form, but I find it judicial…

Post by kennywinker » Thu, Jun 30, 2022, 6:51 PM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #668

kennywinker wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to make it illegal to run a coal plant because you feel like it’s your duty to force some pain on the citizenry for what you perceive as a higher calling: pass a law. Nobody wants what you described. Global warming is literally killing people by the thousands every year now. Wars are coming, mass migrations and climate refugees. This is a crisis, it’s just not a localized one. And it doesn’t have to be…

>>If you want to make it illegal to run a coal plant because you feel like it’s your duty to force some pain on the citizenry for what you perceive as a higher calling >Nobody wants what you described Do you think everyone hear has the memory of a goldfish or are you just lying to us without a care in the world? We can literally go into any HN thread on the subject of coal and see tons of comments to the tune of "thi…