Who’s fired up…
- Thread starter Aardvark86
- Start date
It'll just hasten our demise. And good riddance. Maybe the descendants of the tardigrades will do a better job.
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
Honestly this is just another straw, camels back already broke.
This ruling will make organizations like the FAA, FCC OSHA all good candidates for legal challenges to gut them. This is what Trump set out to do originally. And honestly at this point, the chaos that could follow is probably what we deserve.
This ruling will make organizations like the FAA, FCC OSHA all good candidates for legal challenges to gut them. This is what Trump set out to do originally. And honestly at this point, the chaos that could follow is probably what we deserve.
As is typical for a message board, that probably overstates it more than a bit.
Basically, the "bad" outcome here would be that Congress can't simply delegate 'major questions' to agencies; it has to first make the general policy choices, and then the agencies are free to act.
For my money, that's a very prodemocractic theme - in the big scheme of things, I want major regulatory action to be developed based on some degree of consensus, and more importantly, by people (legislators) who are actually democratically accountable. The Chevron deference cases presents somewhat similar issues, but we're not going to hear anything about that until next term at least. (Note: it looks like the bump stock cert petitions got pushed to the long conference in the fall.)
BTW, there's a decent chance this case gets dismissed based on standing.
Said it before...this is likely The Great Filter that all ET civilizations hit that prevents them from expanding beyond a certain point. It is almost certainly ours. No Star Trek for us.
And just what are those "major questions"? Who draws that line? Who in Congress has the expertise to address them? If Congress mandates that the EPA needs to monitor and regulate air quality, exactly how far into the weeds does Congress have to go to delineate that mandate?
Aren't you a Koch Brothers or Polluters dream.
West Virginia wants to plant a large Brawndo irrigation field.
A
anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r
Guest
bingo. I mean essentially isn’t that how it already works? Congress mandates something and the agencies implement how it’s done?
Does Congress have to set exact standards and rules for the EPA to only enforce? Because if that’s the case, nothing will ever happen….
Can you imagine how sociopathic you’d have to be to continue piling straw on a dead camel?
Did anybody ever use the straw/camel thing during that plastic/littering/paper straw thing? If not - what a big opportunity missed
Indeed, therein lies the rub. and that's the criticism of the theory.
But the question of congressional expertise is sorta/kinda irrelevant - expertise or not, they are the ones elected to make the policy choices. (Oh, BTW, they have, and have access to, all the experts they want during the legislative process.)
Actually no. I'll generally go along with whatever choices are made by the elected branches, including the epa, regardless of whether I think they're the wrong choice. But there are those who fight back from time to time when their interests are affected, and that's fine on this basis too.
Experts, like the truth, has become subjective recently.
Having access to, and actually engaging with, experts has been shown to be miles apart in the actual legislative process. Way too many of our elected officials prefer to surround themselves with sycophants, donors, friends, media personalities - basically anyone except those who are qualified.
Well, yes, absolutely, we live in a first draw the curves, then plot the data world. Which is why it's all the more important for politically accountable persons to decide which experts to rely on, and to instruct them as to which curves to draw.
LOL...they don't need "experts". It will be pure, unadulterated politics with every single regulation - no matter the science - filibustered. As noted above, it's a prescription for inaction on every front.
The "policy choice" is clean air, or clean water, or a safe workplace. THAT'S policy. Having Congress determine the type and allowable concentrations of every single pollutant will ensure that NOTHING gets covered.
Are you going to suggest that Congress, as part of an authorization to use force, then plans every step of the logistical and tactical response? Why not? Same damn thing.
no, that is not at all what I am suggesting, nor is that what the major questions doctrine is suggesting.
But, perhaps a better war power analogy here, if that's where you want to go, is the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and its ilk.
I believe the opposite should be true. Politically accountable could also be called "agenda driven" where experts should rely on the facts regardless. It could take years to undo damage caused by politicians pushing a certain narrative through pseudo science.
Exactly! I feel like I’m watching the prequel to Idiocracy.
Fair enough, and that's probably a little closer to the British system with a professional political class. But it's an approach that is not without its critiques (see, e.g., Michael Young's classic satire The Rise of the Meritocracy). From my perspective, experts are very important but it is actually quite dangerous to cede the policymaking field to them. Why? Because their expertise tends to be an inch wide and a mile deep. But the real world of societal problems is closer to being a mile wide and an inch deep. If you give an accountant a hill of beans to count, he or she will happily do so, but will become so entranced with the exercise that they won't notice the hogs on the other side of the pile that are eating them.
Too many times, the hogs you're referring to are the politicians.
More lol...the GoT resolution simply states:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.
This would equate to Congress telling the executive branch "to take all necessary measures to" ensure that the air is safe. They answer NO "major questions" there. Not even super-major questions. They even leave it up to POTUS to determine when the thing should end:
Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.
So what major questions should they have answered before passing this resolution?
So, the orders list was just issued. For those keeping score, the Court declined to take a review of a case that sought the overruling of NYT v. Sullivan (first amendment/libel). I just hope to god they're not waiting for the sarah palin case to percolate up there.
well yes, who, every 2-4 years, we can take to the slaughterhouse and replace with new hogs.
the authorization to use force both offensively and deterrently. Nothing about tactics.
Nah, what will happen is as the consequences get worse, another country will lead a global charge for change and the US will have to backtrack painfully. We havent even got to the eco-terrosim and war part yet. Time doesnt just stop unfortunately.
We are serving up our role as a world leader on a platter.
Last edited:
OK so far we've got:
1. Bremerton - high school football coach wins (personal prayers after game at midfield not precluded by establishment clause)
2. Concepcion - in an opinion by Soto, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan (!), courts can consider intervening changes in law or fact in resentencing under first step act. A big deal for a lot of people serving long terms for drug offenses that have been downgraded.
1. Bremerton - high school football coach wins (personal prayers after game at midfield not precluded by establishment clause)
2. Concepcion - in an opinion by Soto, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Breyer, and Kagan (!), courts can consider intervening changes in law or fact in resentencing under first step act. A big deal for a lot of people serving long terms for drug offenses that have been downgraded.
Ok...the authorization to regulate air pollutants both "offensively and deterrently" -
42 U.S.C. § 7411
(1) The term "standard of performance" means a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.Seems pretty straightforward. Nothing about tactics.
SCOTUS shouldn't even be considering the question - it's moot. The act in question never went into effect, is dead as a doornail, and its goals have already been achieved.
...and now we've got Ruan. More or less unanimous in result, by Breyer. Lower courts didn't apply proper standard in opioid prescribing case against docs convicted of unlawful distribution. but this one will take a more thorough reading to understand.
R numbers - that looks to be it for today. Four cases left for later this week -- Indian crimes, Remain in Mexico, WV v. EPA, and Torres (war powers authority for suits against states re: veteran discrimination)
R numbers - that looks to be it for today. Four cases left for later this week -- Indian crimes, Remain in Mexico, WV v. EPA, and Torres (war powers authority for suits against states re: veteran discrimination)
Global warming doesn't just stop, either. We could stop emitting CO2 and CH4 today and the planet would continue to warm due to what's in the air right now. The global temp will take decades to stabilize to the current GHG levels - temperatures are a lagging indicator.
With carbon, we put the weight of ~140 billion people into the atmosphere in 2020. Ten gigatons. That's up from 9 gigatons a decade earlier. Absent some as-yet unrealized tech that can quickly and efficiently remove those gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere...we're phucked. We are tripping wires that will ensure natural factors drive global warming into the future no matter what we do. The NP will be ice-free in the summer within a couple of decades. Greenland will continue to lose ice regardless. The West Antarctic ice sheet is nearing irreversible collapse. Permafrost is releasing CO2 and methane and will continue to do so for centuries even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today. The oceans are becoming more and more acidic as they also warm and expand.
It won't matter what other countries do. It won't matter what we do. We'll likely cross 3 degrees of warming before the end of the century and once we hit that point...the planet will take over.
“I’m fired up, You fired up, Yeah! I’m fired up, You fired up, Yeah! (youth baseball dugout chant)
Almost all challenges to regulatory rules have a constitutional basis. Congress has long ceded way too much power to the executive branch, leaving us up to the whims of executive orders, and executive department rule making that far exceeds the intent of laws passed by Congress. Bureaucrats always feel the need to justify their existence, and their political masters are happy to oblige.
IMO, Congress is where there should be accountability first. I think that's the direction this Court is going, Congress, and where appropriate, States need to be legislating, not executives or courts.
Some of it is the system (closed 2 party primaries, gerrymandering, power of incumbency, fund raising needed to mount a campaign) and some of it is the general laziness of the electorate.
I deal with politics on the local/state level and once elected they don’t give a crap what their general constituents want.
It is naive to think the easiest way to affect change is through voting out the current bunch.
I have no illusions about the inertial power of incumbency, or (knowing Joe Crowley personally) its tendency to make one's world a little smaller than it ought to be.
It's no different than buying dish washing detergent. Laziness is an excellent word choice in this case. Again, that is why I think the underlying prodemocracy theme in a lot of these cases is terribly important.
