SCOTUS missteps continue with gutting EPA
- Thread starter HROT
- Start date
This really can't stand. We've got a rightwing dictatorship operating from the bench. All these years the cons complained about legislating from the bench, these guys have decided they're gonna run the country, the hell with the people or the other branches of government.
Democrats, bleeping do something!
Democrats, bleeping do something!
As far as I can tell the court is wrong on this. The EPA must have the power to regulate all power plants.
It won’t get the headlines of Dobbs but this one might have the most damaging impact to a functioning government.
If agencies can’t enforce laws, then the laws aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Pretty soon, the FDA won’t be able to regulate what goes in your food or pills.
If agencies can’t enforce laws, then the laws aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Pretty soon, the FDA won’t be able to regulate what goes in your food or pills.
Not just the country, this ruling and probably more to come will essentially doom our planet and much of life on earth, including humans, who will actually deserve to be eliminated. This ruling verges on being a criminal offense.
Is there a conservative on the board who was pining for not having clean air?
SCOTUS’ newfound affinity for right-wing judicial activism strikes again.
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
I believe this is gonna be a lot bigger deal than people realize. Opens up the legal potential to gut everything from OSHA to the FAA….
Especially when out the other side of it’s mouth the conservatives say “Codify it. Put it into law….” And call themselves “institutionalists”
Again, instead of winning elections and passing laws, the Republicans are imposing their will on the country through the court, with the decisive justices confirmed with dubious legitimacy.
From the smilies posted in my first post in this thread, "owning the libs" trumps everything for these guys. Completely brainless.
The EPA tried to enact a rule outside of the powers given them in the Clean Air Act.
It's as easy as that. Congress can fix that at any time.
It's as easy as that. Congress can fix that at any time.
So glad I'll be dead soon....it's going to get really ugly in 50-100 years
You're missing the point. This decision was decided as it was because the EPA shouldn't be determining what laws mean and how to enforce them, that needs to be left to the legislative branch. Congress loves to pass the buck to administrative agencies so they can claim ignorance and innocence for unpopular rules. Elected officials need to make the rules and have to stand for election based on their decisions.
Or they're doing their jobs telling the Executive Branch they don't have the authority and Congress needs to act to give it to them. Do you understand how things are supposed to work?
"But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme:"
Do you ever read what you bitch about?
Step 1: Establish an ineffectual government.
Step 2: Run on platform that the government is ineffective and unnecessary
Step 3: Pass along judicial decisions that require an effective government
In the long run, while many will try to invoke major questions doctrine, my instinct is that they will do so successfully in relatively few cases. Justice Gorsuch's concurrence has something of a primer on the types of cases it's more likely to apply. I would imagine the first skirmishes will occur in the so called "independent" agencies (FCC, EPA, FTC, etc.) which tend to have somewhat broader grants of regulatory authority. But, here's one specific prediction: I suspect that this decision may ultimately limit HHS's ability to implement some sort of broad, post-Dobbs "regulatory fix".
Ultimately, at my core, I'm very much an Article I guy. This is a good thing for separation of powers that essentially "insists" that Article I actors do the heavy lifting, and is thus prodemocratic as it ensures that major policy choices will be made by persons and entities that are in fact politically accountable. It may be hard to get legislative consensus on big, hard questions, but damn if we wouldn't all be better trying to get our heads back in that mindset rather than a parliamentary, winner-take-all one.
You have no understanding of the decision. SCOTUS simply said that CONGRESS needs to make laws, not regulatory agencies. In other words, regulations must not be expanded beyond the framework of original laws.
Please stop being hysterical, especially when you don't know what you are talking about. You're gonna have a stroke.
Agencies were created because laws as written can’t possibly cover every situation that may arise or set out every procedure that must be followed. Legislatures cannot possibly have, nor should they be expected to have, the necessary expertise to act on matters as they arise in real time.
These guys don't even understand what this means. They're repeating back far-right John Birch Society agitprop.
No one alive today has lived in a country where the executive branch can't make rules and interpret statutes. This was completely settled law, it makes the federal government basically unworkable. Morons, repeating back what the Fox News or the Breitbart tells them.
Worst legal analysis yet. Well done.
Congress DID authorize the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. SCOTUS just doesn’t like that, so they resurrected a judicially-created rule to strike down the law.
Do they? Congress passes laws. Executive enforces laws. SCOTUS simply said it's up to Congress.
I'll just say this flat-out, you moron. They've just upended the entire administrative state that's operated since at least the Great Depression. They've upended the operating assumptions of every administration, Republican or Democrat for almost the last 100 years.
Unplug yourself from the rightwing crack pipe.
Have you even read the posts in this thread? There is no way congress can pass a law that is comprehensive enough to meet every issue that comes up and rules to apply it in every situation.
Congress passes a law that says the epa regulates harmful chemicals released in the environment. There’s no way congress can make a specific list. It charges the epa to develop rules. Perhaps some administrations writs rules to slant towards industry. Others write rules to the environment. That’s why we have elections.
This court has said, nope, we don’t like that rule it’s out.
Jason Stanley: U.S Headed to a One Party State Unless “Americans Wake Up” | Amanpour and Company
Congress delegates the power to administrations to write rules that implement law. That’s how it works. Anything else changes our entire system of government. I thought the Supreme Court wasn’t supposed to do that.
I think that's a pretty key question on this one. Per my understanding responsibility for creation of laws can be delegated to agencies, but, the laws generated by said agencies can't violate existing legal framework.
Haven't had time to look at opinion... but is this the case here?
(they're not actually arguing that agencies can't create, are they?)
Congress gave them the authority to pass regulations. It has done this with many agencies.
Congress simply does not have the time or expertise to personally handle important federal regulations.
And nor will we. But, the executive branch will be under a greater obligation to be able to point to a policy choice reflected in statute, and to may likewise act as something of a brake on both parties' presidents' increasing temptation to govern by executive order
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
Then, once Congress makes a law specifying exactly how to regulate something….this court can throw it out, because the constitution gives congress no authority to rule on greenhouse gases for example, that right belongs to the state.
Our way of life in this country is going down the drain….rapidly…
Even though Congress routinely delegates the ability to write regulations based on the laws they pass, they can't delegate the authority to make laws. That's an important distinction, and that's what this decision is about. That's pretty much what you said in your first sentence, but without the distinction. The EPA, in this case, went too far. It's not the first time either. Remember the controversy over mudholes being considered a part of navigable waterways? During the pandemic, OSHA went too far.
Well, he’s Russian, so that will happen.
While you are correct this will no doubt force agencies to re-examine certain things, this is far from the first invocation of the major questions doctrine. The reality is that almost every regulatory agency does not operate in a relative vaccuum of legislative direction. While their enabling statutes have broad grants of authority that will be tested, most of what they do is actually tied in to statutory direction.
What this decision really does is limit the ability of the executive branch to forge its own path when it can't achieve consensus on the Hill.
