SCOTUS missteps continue with gutting EPA
- Thread starter HROT
- Start date
You may call me names all you like, along with your PE coach friend.
But it remains the fact that you cannot understand this decision due to A: not reading it. B; lack of critical thinking skills.
So to explain it to you like a 5 year old... here goes.
Congress gave the EPA to authority to regulate powers plants by setting a "standard of performance" that was parleyed into "best system of emission reduction" for a particular plant on a case by case basis.
In 2015 the EPA issued a new rule saying the "best system of emission reduction" was to decrease production or subsidize increasing "green energy" sources.
The SCOTUS just ruled that rule exceeded their authority.
So take your strawman and shove it up your ass.
Either way works for me.
It's like Christmas in June! Think I'll play the Bob Seger version of Little Drummer boy to set the mood. LOL!
You're one of the cons here who I really wish would take a good dive into this issue. The world needs more cons who get it.
I don't mean trying to digest the painfully dense IPCC reports or anything, but there are fine books by people you may already respect that are genuinely interesting to read. Here are a few I've liked that you might want to try. Listed in more-or-less least to most alarmist order.
Bill Gates - How to Avoid a Climate Disaster
Elizabeth Kolbert - The Sixth Extinction (Pulitzer winner)
Michael Mann - The New Climate War
Mark Lynas - Our Final Warning: Six Degrees of Climate Emergency
David Wallace-Wells - The Uninhabitable Earth
There are extremes both ways. However, in this, there is absolutely no room for compromise. One party wants to regulate something because they believe it represents a direct threat to the future of humanity. The other side wants to expand that threat. How do you compromise?
Where is the end of this? Can a state manipulate districts by population, making very conservative or liberal districts of relatively fewer residents to protect incumbents?
I hate to say it, but this Court will probably uphold the challenge. Nor am I sure that they would be (technically) wrong to do so. This is like 2A - the Framers fvcked up. They left the conduct of elections up to the states, and specifically the legislatures. I don't expect this Court to look anywhere else in constitution or law to try to save democracy.
The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in February that the state’s congressional maps violated the state constitution by illegally favoring Republicans. The map — drawn by GOP legislators — could have given the party control of as many as 11 of the closely divided state’s 14 districts.
But the Republican legislators argued in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that the state court had extremely limited authority to police the legislature on federal election matters — a theory known as the “independent state legislature” theory.
The theory holds that state legislatures have near-uncheckable authority to set procedures for federal elections — and state courts have either a limited or even no ability to rule on those laws. The theory is based on a pair of clauses in the constitution, the Electors Clause and the Elections Clause, that mention state legislatures but do not explicitly mention the judiciary.
Supreme Court to hear case on GOP ‘independent legislature’ theory that could radically reshape elections
The case stems from the North Carolina Supreme Court's decision this year to throw out the Republican-drawn congressional map for gerrymandering.
www.politico.com
I'm a fiscal conservative. That's it. I'm also a Constitutionalist and Federalist. I don't dispute there's climate change. I am skeptical of a lot of causes and predictions. I'm old enough to remember the predictions of a foot rise in sea level by the 1990's.
You know, I'm personally not that invested in the climate issue one way or another, but I appreciate very much your instincts to educate. With that said, I know marketers gonna market, but consider some of the words in the titles of those books: disaster; extinction; war; warning; emergency; uninhabitable. The authors might have better scientific educational outcomes if they resisted their publishers' instincts to title their works as if they were science fiction.
Set aside NC for a moment. I wonder whether Heather has any clue that her post is PRECISELY what the court is hoping that citizens of all persuasions will do.
There is no Democracy if this dark money joke of a court rules in favor of the NC case. Yes to the rest we must demand Congress acts. Hard when 49 Republicans are absolutely useless though on board with all this bullshit
The short answer is, of course, baby steps. You do what is possible. There is always room for compromise, and you simply have to get out of that mindset. Oh, and by the way, I have a strong suspicion that Planned Parenthood and SBA List might disagree that it is only "in this" that there is no room for compromise. Again, we must get away from that mindset, and if this is the pressure that does it, that's great.
Please read some of my recommendations.
BTW, if you are an audiobook fan, these all work great on your commute, shopping or at the gym. I speak from experience.
I do find that the facts stick better in my aging brain if I read actual words, but this stuff is so interesting, a lot will stick anyway. I am planning to reread the Wallace-Wells book again the old fashioned way. It just has so much really interesting info.
You may well be right, but don't let that put you off. What sounds like hyperbole mostly isn't.
On a humorous note, if I had any artistic talent, I'd probably dummy up a cartoon showing dinosaurs rejecting books about the coming asteroid because of their alarmist titles.
I would love this but it’s unrealistic in today’s politics. There is no compromise.
Boy, there's a bit of irony to unravel there. Let's review our history in NC. The "most democratic" decision was that of the elected NC legislature, which enacted a plan far worse for democrats than what is being used for the 2022 cycle. The "less democratic" one (I don't say undemocratic, since the NC SC is elected but there are only like 7 of them) is the solution that is currently the law and was imposed by the NC SC.
Now again, remember that as I posted earlier, on the merits, I think the single state legislature theory is ludicrous, inasmuch as even if the constitutional textual reference was to legislatures' role in redistricting, the idea that they'd be acting in some sort of vaccuum that magically "turns off" the state legal environment they other exist in, strains credulity.
That sounds very Gary Larson-esque.
But seriously though - if we want to get something done, we need to compromise. If we need to compromise, we need to appreciate perspective. If we need to appreciate perspective, we need to educate and be educated. If we need to educate and be educated, we need and we need to be a receptive audience. If we need a receptive audience, we need to not turn them off with alarmism. Not matter what the marketers say. I fight this battle every day in my (legal) profession, where as you might imagine, "fear-based marketing" is sort of a thing.
If that is what you believe, you will not achieve it. But talk to the gun guys. Talk to people like Mark Warner. Conversely, consider - how's your belief in Total Victory working out?
You know, for all of these hot-button cases the last few days that I've wasted a lot electrons on, my personal reality is that for almost every one of them, I either don't really care what substantive policy we implement, or if I have an opinion on the matter, it is that the policy in the middle is where we "should" be as a society. But what I am passionate about is that good process and consensus are really the only way that anything that is enduring will get done.
You aren’t being realistic. You honestly think these parties will compromise. You are describing a political utopia that will never exist.
They just did, on gun matters. They (either feds or states) might (though i put the odds lower) on abortion. The environment is both easier to get small things done, and harder to get big things done in a time of economic contraction.
It's funny, I'll never understand why people always insist that it's critical to be a "dreamer," to "dream big," etc., but somehow dreams of moderation don't seem to be permitted when they may well be the biggest dreams of all.
Last edited:
Just so i'm clear, is that image "pro" gobbling up power or "anti"?The GOP is just gobbling up power
I am not being critical of you. I admire that you would like to believe we can come together at this time. I don’t see it. The gun compromise only happened because of the string of public shootings that shook most regardless of party.
Agreed, and I appreciate the discussion. But happen it did, when the incentives (political, in this case) were there. Incentives can be political and legal. Here, if the status quo is "don't worry if we can't get it passed in the legislature, we'll just force it down their throats through regulation," and you remove that option, well, the law has just created a new incentive to get something done in the legislature...if you're really passionate enough about getting something done.
I second @globalhawk sentiments on your contributions but this was intentional chaos created by a dark money SCOTUS with a political agenda. Knowing full well the hurdles we the majority have to overcome this minority rule, Gerrymandered, Electoral college joke of a system.
I'm not sure what that says about the "democracy" of the NC options, but as I've noted elsewhere, the basis of disagreement among the justices here about statutory authority is certainly a plausible one, the fact that they resolved it as part of dealing with the case is the ordinary bread and butter of administrative procedure act litigation, and the fact that maybe they've put a new label on it is frankly, unremarkable. Ultimately, the sorts of questions that get addressed under 5 usc 706 are whether final agency action is:
(A)
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B)
contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C)
in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
I do not begrudge Justice Kagan her disagreement or her passion. I think she's the second best justice on that court and admire her a lot. And as I've also said, she might well even be right here. But we need to get away from this idea that the other side is just peddling bullshit every time we lose.
I think Senator Whitehouse has connected enough dots proving this courts intentions and then the bullshit the GOP pulled on 2 seats. The agenda and corruption right there in plain view.
You know, I really don't want to get political here, but I have to say, I do get a chuckle when I hear those on the left complaining that the right has successfully completed some sort of "long march" through the institution of the Supreme Court, while simultaneously (i) seeming to be unaware of the right's complaints about long marches in other institutions and (ii) floating myriad structural proposals for new ways to complete their own, new "long march" through the Supreme Court.
McConnell stole 2 seats. Period. Watch Senator Whitehouse endless proof of the dark money captured court. Simple facts.
You appear to be a very nice person. We just see things a little different. No biggie.
I get why people are butt-hurt about Garland, who was a fine judge before taking the AG position. His situation was objectively unfair. But the simple reality is that the Senate has the confirmation power, and McConnell used the rules to his advantage to get what he wanted, because he could. Just as Reed did to get what he wanted previously with respect to some lower court nominations. And just as Schumer has not, to date, to get some things he'd like, because politics haven't allowed him to.
I'm not under any illusion that there are organized advocacy groups that want the courts a certain way. I just don't care, because for every one, there is another on the other side, and they all spend money. From as far back as Tocqueville, it's actually what we do, as Americans.
Your remedy here is simple, and again, one that the court is actually encouraging you to take advantage of: democracy.
With odds stacked against the majority to achieve, some Democracy.
That is kind of you to say. Just as with WWJD, the thing I try to do is educate. i can be cynical, and I'll troll once in a while if I think there's a chuckle inthere somewhere, but there is really no point in all of the personal bomb throwing that occurs on sites like this.
it's a republic, if we can keep it.
And for good reason.
On a serious note, try to pick up a copy of Samuel P Huntington's "American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony" sometime. While it's an older book, it's quite good. I recommend it because he explains how the type of cynicism that you have is actually one of several cyclical stages that Americans tend to go through vis a vis their political system. If you are open to the idea that it is a stage, and that there are other stages, you'll find it easier to keep your eye on the big picture and find your way out of it to other, more positive stages.
Last edited:
