US Supreme Court Says EPA Can't Regulate Carbon Pollution Under Clean Air Act (techcrunch.com) 321
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to regulate carbon pollution from existing power plants. From a report: The 6-3 decision, with the three liberal justices dissenting, makes it increasingly likely that an act of Congress will be required to create regulations to rein in planet-warming emissions. "Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, which was joined by the five other conservative justices on the bench. "On EPA's view of Section 111(d), Congress implicitly tasked it, and it alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy implicated in the basic regulation of how Americans get their energy," Roberts wrote. "There is little reason to think Congress did so." In instances like this, he said, "[a] decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body"
not exactly (Score:5, Informative)
It actually says Congress did not delegate the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through a generation-shifting approach using section 111(d) of the Act. It's a much narrower holding that I thought we would be getting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't that make the first line of the Slashdot summary completely wrong?
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to regulate carbon pollution from existing power plants.
It sounds like regulating existing power plants is the only thing the EPA can do. They cannot require them to be replaced with other kinds of plants.
That's normally true (Score:3, Interesting)
> Doesn't that make the first line of the Slashdot summary completely wrong?
That's generally the case. At least in stories related to law and suits, where I read the actual bill or court decision. Sometimes, the headline and first sentence isn't "completely wrong", just "very misleading".
Re:not exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
You could argue that in the current climate (non atmospheric) kicking the ball back to Congress is as good as just nixing things completely, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe but considerations like that are supposed to be out-of-scope for the Supreme court. It doesn't actually matter what impact the ruling has unless that impact itself would contradict or undermine the law. Considering the impact is left to the legislators and in some instances prosecutors and juries exercising nullification.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm...sounds like the ATF in the past decade or two.
Maybe this ruling will reign the ATF in a bit....as that they are currently trying to redefine what the NFA and Gun Control Acts spell out, basically making "new law", some of wh
Re: (Score:3)
There are many, many, many instances of things made illegal or restricted that were once sold as "legal".
Would you like some laudanum for your headache?
Point remains that we live in a society, and an individual's freedoms are restricted by the equal rights and freedoms of others. You might consider laws that prevent the average individual from owning a bazooka to be a prime example of "Federal Agency overreach". I, on the other hand, think that restricting ownership of such an item is entirely reasonable.Yo
Re: (Score:3)
It's an interesting decision, as this is the first time the Court has ever used the so-called "major decisions doctrine" where they basically say that the regulation being imposed is a big enough question that it should be granted to the enacting agency through explicit Congressional action, rather than the existing Congressional action that created the agency, or delegated general authority to the agency.
The net effect is that it kicks the can back to Congress, where nothing will happen because of politica
Re:not exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
It's akin so saying that the FBI cannot investigate cybercrimes because congress never listed that when the FBI was first authorized.
EPA already seems to have clear authority under the Clean Air Act to deal with greenhouse gases. Except for quibbling and lobbying from major emitters that CO2 isn't a "pollutant". The court here seems to be discarding precedent and instead insisting that there be specific authorization from congress rather than general authorization.
This is also NOT about limited government, it's about limited federal government. Because the states pushing for this to not want to limit the power of their own state governments over their county and cities.
Re:not exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
It was never that way, even back 230 years ago; the US has never been a loose confederation of independent nations, EU style. The way the US was set up was highly flawed and highly corrupt, by enshrining the putrid institution of slavery. Since then we had a civil war which overthrew this. And the original way the US was set up is irrelevant to today. Times change and it is foolishness only to look back at such terrible times as appopriate to the modern world. For us to have nostalgia for the beginning is like having the UK want to go back to the feudal era. Move on and improve rather than stand still and stagnate.
Re: (Score:3)
It was kind of a more-centralized confederation, hence "United States of America" rather than "American Democratic Republic" or something along those lines. Federalism was a bit of a compromise between a confederation of allied states and a fully centralized empire like the one that spawned it.
True, but the problem is a h
Re: (Score:3)
Not in my state. The GQP is hard at it hammer & tongs gerrymandering themselves into permanent minority rule, even though my state has more registered Ds than Rs. Our state government isn't in the least bit answerable to the state's population, but only to themselves. And I fully anticipate that the next SCOTUS session will say in Moore v. Harper that that's perfectly fine.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll bite, what is one thing Republicans want to do that most of the nation would be onboard with? This is an actual question because the only thing I see on their platform is how they can hold on to power and nothing about helping anybody but themselves/donors. There are an uncomfortable number of Democrats really doing the same thing just not so blatantly.
While I agree that Congress should do more small bills I'll point out that Democrats have indeed been doing exactly as you're saying. [wikipedia.org] Only the big bills
Re:not exactly (Score:5, Informative)
It actually says Congress did not delegate the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through a generation-shifting approach using section 111(d) of the Act. It's a much narrower holding that I thought we would be getting.
Agreed, from the ruling:
The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate power plants by setting a "standard of performance" for their emission of certain pollutants into the air. 84 Stat. 1683, 42 U. S. C. 7411(a)(1). That standard may be different for new and existing plants, but in each case it must reflect the "best system of emission reduction" that the Agency has determined to be "adequately demonstrated" for the particular category. 7411(a)(1), (b)(1), (d). For existing plants, the States then implement that requirement by issuing rules restricting emissions from sources within their borders.
Since passage of the Act 50 years ago, EPA has exercised this authority by setting performance standards based on measures that would reduce pollution by causing plants to operate more cleanly. In 2015, however, EPA issued a new rule concluding that the "best system of emission reduction" for existing coal-fired power plants included a requirement that such facilities reduce their own production of electricity, or subsidize increased generation by natural gas, wind, or solar sources.
The question before us is whether this broader conception of EPA's authority is within the power granted to it by the Clean Air Act.
So the EPA is allowed to regulate carbon pollution, it's just not allowed to say a type of plant emits so much carbon that you basically need to start replacing it with something else. Based on the excerpt in question this is probably correct, the law seems to give the EPA the power to force a category of plants to run as cleanly as possible, but not to shut down a category of plants.
The weird thing with the ruling is the 2015 EPA rule never went into effect and no one knows what the Biden administration rule will look like, so there was no real need for the court to issue this ruling in the first place.
Re:not exactly (Score:5, Interesting)
2 and 3 though were unique. What the EPA did here was come up with, on their own, a model of what an ideal mix of power should be (coal, natural gas, renewables) based on emissions targets, and then created a set of regulations that was so hard for coal plants to hit that the providers would be forced to shift to natural gas (Block 2) or renewables (Block 3). So the real question was, did the EPA overstep it's authority by determining what the ideal power mix should be according to emissions on it's own and then impose such a heavy burden on private industry to force it to comply with their opinion?
The court said that that kind of decision is Congress' decision, and notably that a federal agency must follow only what it explicitly is tasked to do, effectively limiting the power of bureaucracy to interpret it's mandate in whatever way it wants and increase it's own power. I worded that in a very specific way; the opinion isn't about the EPA. It's precedent for other federal agencies to watch out for that they cannot overstep their bounds and reinterpret their mandates to expand their power.
So yes in practical terms, the ruling doesn't change much of what's happening today, but that's not the point. The audience of this opinion is every other federal agency.
Re: (Score:3)
It means that the EPA can only use delegated authority to regulate things they're actually authorized to regulate in said delegation.
IIRC, the courts have already upheld these types of delegations, despite the routine responsibility failures of agencies who are delegated authority.
Being fair to the bureaucrats, it's likely that the elected officials want to avoid accusations of overreach, thus limiting the authority delegated. Those making the appointments are likely still expecting extreme outcomes with l
Idiocracy really did turn out to be a documentary! (Score:5, Insightful)
Soon we'll be feeding our plants Brawndo, and getting rid of all the smart people because they offend the unintelligent people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Welcome to Costco.
I LOVE YOU!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that doing so requires serious changes to who we vote for and why, and I don't think we're ready, willing or able to do that. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
I think the natural end result of social media is populism. Or at least the constant stream of more information than anyone can ever hope to ingest leads people to prefer simple, easily repeatable "memes" (in the Dawkins sense, not the pop cultural sense). Nuance and unintended consequences are complex ideas that really have no place in social media generally. This could change with a future information hub beyond today's trite social media but nobody has built it and I don't know what it would look like
Re: Idiocracy isn't that great a movie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This isnt about carbon pollution vs industry, this is about what legislation the EPA is granted specific authorities to enact vs not.
The EPA is granted authority to decide which things are pollutants and then set limits. If they are allowed to set their limit at a certain low level that's impossible to achieve without a mix of generating sources, then they are effectively authorized to regulate generation sources to an extent. I can't really see a problem there - it's the only way to meet the goal. If states found a way to cap CO2 by modifying existing coal plants alone, then they don't need to change their mix. It just doesn't seem
Re: Idiocracy isn't that great a movie (Score:5, Informative)
It's almost like Congress is incapable of sweeping reforms, due to the tyranny of the minority-rule in the United States Senate.
Bring back the talking filibuster - if you want to obstruct something, show us how strongly you feel it, and show us how many Senators feel the same way by helping you to hold the floor. Or get the fuck out of the way if you don't have the votes.
It's time for bad-faith obstructionism to fuck off. This country always moves ahead when we have good-faith negotiations between the parties and come to a consensus, but there just is too much incentive to block shit and then campaign on what the big bad opposition is trying to do that will ruin lives, destroy communities, outlaw $X, etc. even though there's probably a minority within the minority that either don't have a problem with it, or actually agree but don't want to face political retribution for their moderate stance.
Re: (Score:3)
I.e. If the House of Representatives passes a bill, the Senate must be required to vote on it, and vise-versa. Same with the Executive Branch. If Congress passes legislation, then the President must decide whether to sign it or veto it. If the President makes an appointment, the Senate must hold a confirmation hearing. Not saying that any of them must vote in favor, just that a vote mus
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Idiocracy isn't that great a movie (Score:5, Insightful)
But I see no cure that isn't worse than the disease.
Ranked choice voting. We'll get better candidates this way. It won't fix all the problems by any means, but we'd have to re-evaluate after that to know where it takes us first. Otherwise, voting for third party candidates or having a better primary within a party is unlikely to happen.
Re: Idiocracy isn't that great a movie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
By that rationale the EPA could declare humans a pollutant and set limits. If it is impossible to achieve without a mix of healthcare compromises, then they are effectively authorized to regulate healthcare sources.
Obviously that is ridiculous. Congress didn't empower them to make up solutions but empowered them with certain powers with limits, powers which are not global in scope.
Frankly I think this ruling is watered down from what it should be. These executive agencies step on powers delegated to the sta
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Idiocracy isn't that great a movie (Score:5, Insightful)
But despite what the news tells you, when you read the decisions you see that it has a lot more to do with originalism. Now one can argue if originalism is the right way to go, but when framed in that context you see how much spin is being put on these decisions.
In the Dobbs case that overturned Roe v. Wade for example, when Alito's opinion states the court was egregiously wrong in Roe, he's not referring to the moralistic aspect of women's health. Instead he's referring to the fact that Roe v. Wade overturned federal law, state law, and instead had unelected justices create a framework on how to view abortion. That is a legislative act, and something the SCOTUS is expressly not allowed to do, per the Constitution SCOTUS can only strike down laws that do not follow the Constitution and return it to the legislature for fixing. Notably there was no check on SCOTUS for doing it; to use your words SCOTUS was the tyrant in Roe. When you read Alito's opinion, he's actually saying that the Court at the time usurped an issue that Constitutionally should be left to the voters and instead imposed legislation which isn't it's role.
This case is the same just as you said. I encourage people to read the actual cases and opinions themselves, even the dissenting opinions. The media has a profit motive to enflame you to read their news and benefits when people's tensions are high. Attacking the credibility of the Supreme Court after the Roe/Dobbs case generates ad revenue by spinning every case into a political context. But the real issue at stake is originalism vs. stare decisis or ideology. That's worth debating, but the rest of what's being spun right now is just noise.
Re: (Score:3)
> per the Constitution SCOTUS can only strike down laws that do not follow the Constitution
SCOTUS granted this power to itself in Marbury vs. Madison.
Originalism is wielded exclusively to advance a desired political outcome. Per your definition, Originalists should feel compelled to abstain from judicial review, as it's not present in the literal text of the Constitution. Since I see no clamoring for that retrenchment, we are free to assume it's because that would not aide the radical majority's obviou
Re: (Score:3)
That is not what Marbury v. Madison did. Judicial review was in effect long before Marbury v. Madison; it was common practice in at least 7 of the 13 states when interpreting their law in accordance with their State Constitution. The conflict arose regarding which held precedence; ie could Congre
Re: (Score:3)
So the court is a GOP sham because the judges decided that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" actually meant exactly what that plain English sentence says? Fascinating take, thanks for your input.
Uhh, that "sentence" doesn't actually appear in the constitution, it appears there as only part of a longer sentence.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [wikipedia.org]
What seemed to be driving the framers is the concern that a federal army could be used to oppress the people and that armed militias would prevent the army from doing so. This is why it was understood as a collective right. Because the purpose of the
Re: Idiocracy isn't that great a movie (Score:5, Interesting)
The other 3 justices though have a more stare decisis approach, and the left is attempting somewhat unsuccessfully to push a "living Constitutionalism" philosophy that the Constitution should be interpreted via the context of the times. Their dissent comes from that kind of perspective, although I think it undermines their credibility because in the end it suggests that certain moral causes trump the rule of law and require someone with big boy pants to come in and tell people what to do. But I at least understand their position, even though I don't totally agree with it.
Interestingly enough though, the original Roe opinion suggests something that is very originalist and I am constantly surprised that the left hasn't taken this approach. When the Constitution was written, people weren't concerned with abortions, in this particular context they were much more concerned with growing the population and the fact that the child mortality rate before age 5 was a whopping 492.6 deaths per 1,000 births! So the Constitution as written says that people "born" in the United States are citizens with rights. Roe's opinion touches on that there are different definitions of "born", Judaism considers it when a child leaves the womb, Christianity has interpreted it as conception, doctors are somewhere in between and the case law has settled somewhere around "viable outside of the womb" which of course has no definition.
But when you consider the concept of anchor babies, we allow children born in the US, even if their parents are illegal immigrants, to be citizens, but we do not allow children conceived in the US to be citizens. So one would argue that there is precedent in US law that the definition of "born" is when the child leaves the womb, as that's how other parts of law is practiced. if that is the case, then one could argue that a fetus has no rights and therefore the mother's rights to their body and privacy trump the fetus; thus abortion is legal and the woman is entitled to medical privacy until the child is born. I'm really surprised the left hasn't taken that strategy on this issue, although there are some smart people on this issue on both sides so perhaps they see something I don't.
Re: (Score:3)
All of those are good points, but the way it looks the court had already made up its mind before a case even came along. They were just waiting for a moment to do this and then back-rationalize it with whatever fits. A lot of decisions are made like this, and the person deciding even sometimes believes they are basing it on the arguments that they make rather than on the fact they've already made their mind up.
Insane Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
This is basically saying that Congress has to spell out all of the details for any bill rather than leave it to the executive branch to execute the law. It will just lead to industry lobbyists setting the standards during the legislation rather than what we have now which includes experts and public comment, not to mention new technologies and research won't be included.
Re:Insane Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
For years I've had the idea that "expecting common sense" is asking too much - now it's just flat out a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
anything the forefathers couldn't have imagined
Yeah. That Internet thing has got to go. Won't someone please think of the children [slashdot.org]?
Just a sec. I don't recall seeing a mention of 'children' in the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is weird, because that idea is somewhat anti-conservative. At its core, Conservatism believes that morality is not progressive - it has always been with us and we've always known right from wrong and that many forms of progress could be at the expense of morality. The Right is constantly in fear of children being educated with new ideas and treat it as an infectious disease.
That means that nothing fundamentally changes about humanity, so even though specific things are unforeseen the general ideolog
Re: (Score:3)
The core idea behind obamacare came from the Heritage foundation, for gods sak
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Insane Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why I've had such a difficult time wrapping my head around how conservatives think. I am truly trying to understand "the other side", something few if any politicians on either side have done for the last 20 years. Yes, I know liberals have blind spots, but the out right hypocrisy of conservatives is extremely obvious from my point of view. I'm sure there is hypocrisy on the left, but I have a difficult time seeing it and have yet to have anyone really point out anything egregious.
I don't see any equivalent on the left to those like Cawthorn, MGT or Lauren Boebert. Those 3 have no business running anything. Now we have that little special snowflake from Colorado claiming she's tired of "separated of church and state". Well what does she suggest? Which church (out of the 1000s) would the government follow? How about Muslim or Jewish teachings? I'm sure that will go about as far as you could throw any of those idiots. It's "christian" values or nothing in their eyes. They are not inclusive, they do not have empathy for their fellow humans unless they are like them. Notice how Clarence Thomas conveniently left out re-evaluating interracial marriage, but gay marriage and contraception rights could be looked at.
I suppose the right would point out AOC, and a few others, but really, to me, it's the difference between people on the right not caring about people at all and AOC and the others are wanting to help people and be more inclusive. Which for some reason scares the shit out of the right. I don't understand why inclusivity and equality is so scary to them. I am a middle aged white male and I fully understand I have benefited from white privilege. If I had colored skin, my life would have been dramatically different. Again, something else the right is blind to.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe part of your problem understanding the other side is that you probably look at the world as Republican vs. Democrat instead of conservative vs. liberal. I have noticed that both parties seem to pick some strange and often conflicting platforms. For example, Republicans are pro-life for unborn babies, but also support the death penalty. Democrats are against the death penalty, but have no problem with an expecting mother killing her unborn child. These are both conflicting views. Republicans would
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If we've always known right from wrong, then the Constitution would not have had this language in it:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
That's institutional racism and slavery, which is pretty clearly not a moral stance. If morality has always been with us, and our blessed founding documents are moral in their own right, then we wouldn't have needed the various amendments that bring equality among race and gender. We wouldn't need protections against being tried for the same crime twice. We wouldn't need protections against self-incrimina
Re: (Score:3)
The important point with that is that we had a Constitutional amendment to change that.
The idea is not that the authors of the Constitutions are infallible or that their document is perfect - it's that their meaning and intent at the time extends to the future and expands to a more complex reality unless amended.
Re:Insane Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
That's institutional racism and slavery, which is pretty clearly not a moral stance.
You'd be surprised by the number of books written on how totally moral those two instances are. There are entire treatises on the topic, from the perspective of pro-racism and pro-slavery moralists, on both sides of the Atlantic, ranging a span of centuries.
By the way, the "excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons" part is actually anti-racist and anti-slavery. The idea of this point is to determine the strength of each State. If non-tax-paying Native Americans, meaning all Native Americans imprisoned in reservations, and the other Persons, meaning black slaves, were counted as inhabitants, those States, meaning their slave-owners and indigenous massacrers, would have had higher representative numbers, more votes, and more power. Federal laws and regulations would have been much more of whatever Southern States wanted, and much less of what the Free States wanted. So the Free States designed that rule to reduce Southern power, making sure progressive laws had a higher chance of being approved. Pointing at it and accusing it of racism etc. misses the point epically.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is basically saying that Congress has to spell out all of the details for any bill rather than leave it to the executive branch to execute the law. It will just lead to industry lobbyists setting the standards during the legislation rather than what we have now which includes experts and public comment, not to mention new technologies and research won't be included.
Yes, Congress is supposed to clearly and specifically create the laws. That's their role.
The executive branch can't just imagine that a law that says one thing actually means another.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the congress is suppose to say what we want the law to do, the executive branch is the one that works out the details of doing it.
Imagine a bill that sets up the FDA needing to explicitly say which foods have to be safe and what they need to be safe from. "Sorry we're only allowed to require cow meat be refrigerated, nothing about deer meat - enjoy your burger!"
Re: (Score:2)
No, the congress is suppose to say what we want the law to do, the executive branch is the one that works out the details of doing it.
Imagine a bill that sets up the FDA needing to explicitly say which foods have to be safe and what they need to be safe from. "Sorry we're only allowed to require cow meat be refrigerated, nothing about deer meat - enjoy your burger!"
Under the laws passed by Congress the FDA actually doesn't regulate cow meat. That is regulated by the USDA.
The FDA does regulate deer meat.
A nice summary of the differences between the USDA and FDA is here: https://www.registrarcorp.com/... [registrarcorp.com]
"Red Meats
USDA is responsible for regulating cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, and other equine, along with their carcasses and parts. These meats are exempt from the FD&C Act to the extent they are covered by the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Non-specified
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure FDA still requires foods to be refrigerated even if they don't regulate the specific meat.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course not, the power is limited to what the congressional act defines
Re: Insane Ruling (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Law will work differently now, then. Unlike how it always has. This is gonna go great.
Re: (Score:2)
It will just lead to industry lobbyists setting the standards during the legislation rather than what we have now which includes experts and public comment
I mean, yeah - there are experts and public comment (that can be ignored) but the lobbyists are employees of the agencies and often leaders within them. So we didn't exactly have it good before either.
Re:Insane Ruling (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Last I checked, the schools are under State control, not Federal.
Last I checked abortion was legal everywhere in the USA for the past 50 years. At this point I would never look to the present or the past to make any judgement of the future. The country is too fucking bat shit crazy for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the SPLC considers the public school system systemically racist. Why anyone - Left, Right, or center would support openly racist institutions is beyond me. If there's anything the Left and Right can agree on, it's that racism is bad, and systemic racism particularly insidious.
The Republicans are just trying to court minority voters, who have traditionally voted democrat. Pointing out that even left-leaning organizations use terms like "school to prison pipeline" to describe the public school syst
Re: (Score:3)
No it does not say that - that would be a repeal of Cevron - which this isn't.
Its saying congress has to be a little more explicit about they types of rules and scope an agency has. Agencies are not free to just adopt policy on "major question" but they absolutely still can set the policy on major question.
If Congress Amends the Clean Air Act tomorrow with "and the EPA shall have the authority to establish standards for green house gas emissions." then the EPA can still ON ITS OWN WITHOUT GOING BACK TO CON
Re: (Score:2)
This is what the Clean Act was made for. Congress didn't say "we want clean air, unless it's too inconvenient for coal companies"
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Insane Ruling (Score:5, Informative)
If Congress Amends the Clean Air Act tomorrow with "and the EPA shall have the authority to establish standards for green house gas emissions." then the EPA can still ON ITS OWN WITHOUT GOING BACK TO CONGRESS, decide how much and what types of greenhouse gasses industry is allowed to emit.
They don't have to amend it.
(A) establishes standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant [cornell.edu]
"any air pollutant" being substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. [cornell.edu]
It should not work that way.
Says you. Congress said otherwise.
The EPA should have to suggest a set of standards and congress should have to then enact it
So the executive branch can't do anything that wasn't *specifically* written by congress, and if they see a need for action (immediate or otherwise), they have to beg congress to pass a law granting authority for that specific action? Nothing would ever get done even if congress wasn't gridlocked. The SEC would effectively be helpless to prosecute novel schemes for insider trading etc.
Re:Insane Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
They also killed Roe vs. Wade by taking a big chunk out of any constitutional right to privacy. The "conservative" supreme court judges perfectly meet the definition of "partisan hacks." They're willing to maim US law with hackish bodges to implement their partisan agenda.
Also notice how these "cautious toward change" conservatives are implementing the most rapid and radical changes the US has seen in generations over just the last couple of weeks. Just as with the Trump administration, the left can only look on with envy at the speed and magnitude of change these "conservatives" are carrying out.
Always remember that conservatives are not cautious toward change - as with any publicly-acceptable principle they claim to have, that concept is just a partisan cudgel which can be tossed aside the moment it's no longer convenient. They are pro-aristocracy. Left vs. right in political parlance is a euphemism for democratic vs. aristocratic.
Re: (Score:2)
Good. That's their actual job.
Re: (Score:3)
It will just lead to industry lobbyists setting the standards
They already do, why do you think a Republican stacked supreme court ruled the way it did? The reality is the legal system in the USA is broken. When the judgement of law follows political partisanship you may as well tear up the part of the constitution that defines the separation of powers of government.
Re: (Score:2)
Kill the filibuster (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, it's not a constitutional thing that there has to be 60 votes to pass legislation, it's only a 100 years old and it sure isn't working for us today. I don't care which party gets rid of it just do it already and let's start passing things.
If the response is "what happens when party x gets in power then" the answer is "let them pass whatever they can get passed". 51 votes to pass legislation also means 51 votes to undo that legislation, make politicians actually put their asses on the line behind the bills they actually want to do.
I think a side effect will actually end up being more compromises between the parties as the idea is to pass something that will survive 2 or 4 years when the opposing side takes control. Let's see how popular certain things actually are with the public when they are actually laws and not just talking points.
Re: (Score:3)
Not just that but it's dumb to think the reps won't kill it if it suits them anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Congress 50 years ago was an entirely different animal from today. It's clear the idea of pulling 10 votes from the opposing party is near impossible for most things.
Every state legislature operates with a simple majority for legislation why couldn't the Federal legislature do it again as it had done before.
Re: Kill the filibuster (Score:2)
The reason we have the SCOTUS we have now is because Republicans refused to let Obama pick a justice for nearly a year because it was an election year, then turned around and shoved one in after voting had already started. Neither of those things should have happened.
Re: (Score:3)
As it is, Congress does almost nothing anymore. On the one hand, that's good - fewer big mistakes happening. But now the Court is actually doing more legislating than Congress in 2022.
Re: (Score:2)
Court is actually doing more legislating
And to me this is a problem. I don't believe of the idea of "nothing gets done is good" in the face of the SC basically telling Congress they have to do things again.
I am not sure there is a good answer as to why a state legislature operating on a simple majority to pass doesn't cause untold issues but it would federally.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Mistakes are far easier to clean up than inaction. You can't really fix inaction because you don't see the consequences. Especially if inaction is the default.
Re: (Score:2)
Manchin won’t do it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably not but what's going to happen with that is as soon as there is another Republican trifecta they will not hesitate to kill it, and that will suck for awhile and they will pass some atrocious shit but at least it's done and there are real consequences to taking a majority in the Senate from then forward.
Losing your majority means possibly losing all those laws you just passed unless they turn out to be actually effective and positive laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think a side effect will actually end up being more compromises between the parties as the idea is to pass something that will survive 2 or 4 years when the opposing side takes control.
Did you just say that by removing the requirement of getting 10 votes from opposing parties, we will wind-up with more than 10 votes from opposing parties? That does not follow.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite, maybe I worded it badly.
If there is a 52-48 split in the Senate with a trifecta they can effectively pass whatever they want, but on the other hand there is the risk of losing that trifecta the next election cycle so what you want to pass is something pretty agreeable to puts stakes on the other side repealing it. If a law turns out to be effective and popular there is less incentive to just strike it down immediately.
If there is a split with the House and Senate but you can pass with 51 it beco
Re: (Score:3)
The original idea of allowing filibusters was that the Senate should be a deliberative body, not a ruling party steamroller. The idea was that the Senate's actions should be thoroughly aired and debated, so that all sides of the issues become clear, in particular to the electorate.
That is in distinction to the House, where essentially only one person decides what passes and what doesn't: Nancy Pelosi.
The real problem with the cloture rule, i.e. filibuster, is that in the recent past, the powers that be in
Scrubbed coal (Score:3)
There is a story about a CO2 scrubber in Iceland a little farther down the feed,
The EPA apparently CAN specify that coal plants use emission control tech, just specify that you can have a coal plant provided it emits no carbon into the atmosphere and suggest that one way to do that is available right now - just site a nuclear plant right next door to power the scrubber !
Of course that does nothing to reduce the other poisons they spew out
Next, do ... (Score:2)
Re: Next, do ... (Score:2)
Ammonia is a plant food as well if it's not too concentrated.
Supreme Court (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Quite consistent with the fact that global warming is not mentioned in the original US Constitution.
The Tenth Amendment declares, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, states have all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution.
The Constitution is a lot wiser than you're giving it credit for here. You're making the argument that the lack of an all-powerful centralized federal government precludes anything getting done. I disagree. The Framers
Activist Judges (Score:2)
Are these the activist judges that republicans keep complaining about? You know the ones who ignore past precedents.
Re: (Score:3)
Are these the activist judges that republicans keep complaining about? You know the ones who ignore past precedents.
So all prior decisions of the Supreme Court are perfect and should never be overturned? How about these:
https://www.findlaw.com/legalb... [findlaw.com]
African-Americans can't be citizens? It's ok to round up the Japanese? Euegenics is ok? Sodomy is banned?
I know you can't be serious, especially about that last one.
Gnashing of teeth (Score:5, Insightful)
While there is sure to be much gnashing of teeth about this decision, it's important to note what the Court is doing here. It's forcing Congress to do its job, namely to pass legislation to do things rather than relying on Executive Orders and/or an activist Court legislating from the bench. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, this is how Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Court are supposed to function. Congress legislates according to the will of the people. The President signs/doesn't sign/vetoes using the power of the bully pulpit, and the Court makes sure the other two branches aren't doing anything beyond their legal authority.
This is not about "getting stuff done for the environment" or "doing what is right for the planet." This is about making sure all branches of government work within the legal strictures imposed on them by the Constitution, period, full stop, end of discussion. If Congress wants something done, it can pass a law, plain and simple. If it can't muster the votes to get it done, it's not up the Court or an unelected agency to do it for them.
Re:Gnashing of teeth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress legislates according to the will of the people
Are you sure about that? I mean, I know that's how it's supposed to work, but that doesn't mesh with what I've seen in my lifetime.
Re:Gnashing of teeth (Score:4, Insightful)
Smokers (Score:2)
I propose that anyone with those insanely stupid additions to their pickup to make huge amounts of smoke park around the Supreme Court building.
Welcome to Dystopia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
[A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.
When people talk about "democracy," they generally use it like in the following quote:
The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.
You don't sound smart when you correct Thomas Jefferson based on your effortful misunderstanding of the the word. Even 200+ years ago Madison had to make clear that he was using the term in an unusually narrow way.
The SC does science (define hazardous) (Score:2)
The act says regulate Hazardous Emissions, given the science says CO2 will raise temperatures and make life difficult that declares it hazardous.
The conservative justices are doing their usual "don't look up" and since they don't believe that CO2 will do anything at all, then it is not hazardous, so the the court has now done science and defined hazardous based on their ignorance the science (and pretty much ignorance of everything in the rest of the world), "corporate business is good and always does the r
Kagan said it best... (Score:3, Insightful)
Kagan, joined by fellow justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, called the court’s decision “all the more troubling” given the subject matter.
“Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” Kagan wrote. “And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.”
Kagan also called out the court for essentially designating itself as the rule-maker on those policies.
“The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent,” Kagan concluded.
Re:Kagan said it best... (Score:4, Insightful)
Kagan, joined by fellow justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, called the court’s decision “all the more troubling” given the subject matter.
“Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” Kagan wrote. “And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.”
Kagan also called out the court for essentially designating itself as the rule-maker on those policies.
“The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent,” Kagan concluded.
This is why Kagan shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. She offers no constitutional basis for her argument, just feelings and drama.
The court is not designating itself a rule-maker, it made no climate policy. The majority just said that the existing law does not support the actions that were being taken. The congress has the power to address the matter as it sees fit.
Re:Kagan said it best... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why Kagan shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. She offers no constitutional basis for her argument, just feelings and drama.
No, she's pointing out that Congress has given adequate authorization to the EPA already. The level of minutia the majority ruling implies is necessary is ridiculous. Congress authorized the EPA to regulate pollutants and given the problems excessive CO2 emissions are likely to cause, they are certainly pollutants.