Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Supreme Court is focused on laws, not outcomes - as it should be.
Is it though?
They are the final say on legal interpretation. Outcomes are for legislators to worry about.
Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
91–100 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, but that would require Congress to actually do something, which hasn't happened in the last 18 months so we shouldn't expect it to start. Congress could have mooted this case with ordinary statutory procedures at any point, but did not.
But they probably should, and I hope this will get them to do it.
Unlikely. Republicans were only barely willing to work with democrats after the latest in a long string of people gunning down school children. Since hatred of the environment is practically a party platform, they certainly aren't going to cooperate on giving the EPA anything ever.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#93I 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.
The senate is affirmative action for rural areas. Why do we accept minority rule?
Because it was explicitly created with the goal of preventing majoritarian rule. The majority's interests are represented in the house.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, but that would require Congress to actually do something, which hasn't happened in the last 18 months so we shouldn't expect it to start. Congress could have mooted this case with ordinary statutory procedures at any point, but did not.
I think a good thing that laws can't pass without sufficient consensus. If you can bypass consensus for the greater good then so can the other side.
One man’s consensus is another man’s deliberately bought off by an unholy alliance of special interests and stupid people.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#95I 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.
The senate is affirmative action for rural areas. Why do we accept minority rule?
B/c the US is a union.
I live in a rural area. There are plenty of laws that make sense for my area that would be ridiculous in high density cities and vise verse. Here there is no minimum speed limit and I can drive my tractor down the road by attaching an orange triangle. I can drill my own well. I can chop and burn trees on my property. None if thus would make sense in the city.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#96Earlier 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.
They could rule the law to be unconstitutional. And they would do just that.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#97What 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.
That could employ subject matter experts and scientists to draft reasonable and prudent regulations, hopefully away from the influence of lobbyists? What a novel concept.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a good thing that laws can't pass without sufficient consensus. If you can bypass consensus for the greater good then so can the other side.
The rise of China is testing and will continue to test this assumption. The Chinese government does not require consensus. It can build 40,000 kilometers of high speed rail in just a few years. It can pull hundreds of millions from poverty. It can shut down entire companies and industries overnight (e.g. private school tutoring), jail corrupt corporate executives, and in general coerce compliance to any law. Do you k…
They also can't enforce building codes leading to fires that kill a lot of people, have no real food safety and dramatically impinge on any sense of individual rights.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#99Earlier 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.
The Supreme Court can just ignore its own precedents, so this doesn’t really help.
Re: Supreme Court limits EPA’s power to cut emissions
#100It'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…
Overturn Marbury vs Madison.