Could lead to a broad demolition of the administrative state.
Another radical decision by a revanchist court, in this case subs uting its will for Congress's.
J. Kagan: "Some years ago, I remarked that '[w]e’re all textualists now.' It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons [like MQ] magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards."
Trump President.
Not Clinton.
DID THAT!!!
"Hey, Sport; suck on this."
Travis Bickle - "Taxi Driver"
It's ing Calvinball every time with the Roberts court.
Biden v Texas would be a trite counterexample, but in practice the case is remanded to the same loony judge for reconsideration.
Don't start that happy horse , bum. This is the Trump Court and you know it, sassafras.
Trump President.
Not Clinton.
ha, ha!!!!!!!!!
What if the local sheriffs were given the same power as the EPA? They could pull you over because they didn't like the color of your car and fine you whatever they want. It doesn't matter that bluecwas ok last year we decided we don't like blue this year.
The sheriff can basically do that and take your money and your car.
If the EPA fined companies for the color of their cars, I haven't seen it.
Lol going with bull hypothetical analogies. Pure smokescreen.
I mean LE pulls people over because they don't like the color of their skin all the time.
But sure, it's time someone considered the feelings of the white businessman!
In Texas they can arrest you for running a stop sign. Not running a stop sign and you killed a guy. But for the minor traffic violation
You guys are missing the point. The sheriff is enforcing laws written by elected officials. EPA writes its own laws and changes them any time they want to.
Be nice going back to the 60s/70s when brown air and rivers that caught on fire were the norm. Maybe we can have Beijing air quality too.
Just fly out (if you can find a in' flight without canx) to Los Angeles. Bingo!
After Supreme Court ruling, can EPA still tackle climate change?
"the Biden administration said it had no intention of re-implementing the CPP.
The fact that the policy is not in effect, and likely will never be in effect, would typically be
strong grounds for the Supreme Court to not consider the issue.
But the court here decided otherwise. It then moved to the core question of the case:
whether, in a section of the Clean Air Act, Congress empowered the EPA to restrict carbon dioxide emissions from power plants."
"“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” he added.
But “a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”
The high court’s ruling is limited to that decision, Chief Justice Roberts stressed – a relatively narrow outcome, according to some experts.
Essentially, the EPA cannot use that section of that law (the Clean Air Act) for that purpose (restricting emissions from power plants) in the broad manner outlined in the CPP. That is all.
Justice Elena Kagan ... the Supreme Court strips the EPA “of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,’”
. The court has limited the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions, she added, but
“both the nature and the statutory basis of that limit are left a mystery.”
“How far does its opinion constrain EPA?
The majority makes no effort to say,”
Roberts – wrote is that regulatory authority in an area as politically and economically important as climate change must be determined by Congress, not by the EPA or other executive branch agencies.
the Cons ution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as subs utes for laws passed by the people’s representatives.”
Congress has fallen well short of any sort of widespread climate action.
“Congress has not passed, and never even seriously considered, a federal renewable energy standard,
leaving it up to a patchwork of state standards ... to shift the electricity sector from fossil fuels to renewables,”
Thursday’s ruling – on its face, at least – still leaves the EPA and other agencies with regulatory tools to choose from,
climate change was an issue that only Congress could address,
The doctrine is relatively new – and holds that federal agencies should have strict limits on their ability to issue regulations of “major importance” unless Congress clearly delegates that authority to the agency.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2022/0630/After-Supreme-Court-ruling-can-EPA-still-tackle-climate-change
So Roberts and mafiya use a kind of "non-delegation clause" by dumping it all on Congress,
ing knowing full well that Repugs have and will block, weaken any environmental legislation, which of course would only come from the Dems.
so the oligarchy can keep raping and polluting for profit.
pro-business is always anti-environment, anti-public health. the Capitalist oligarchy.
Expect other suits, probably already conceived and ready to file,
that will site this ruling to block all kinds of government regulations.
the EPA
Of course. They'll just commence to lodging law suits from sea to shining sea like you're doing to enable baby killers to keep killing said babies. You ers never quit. Ever. That's your religion.
Supreme Court’s EPA ruling could put other regs in danger of course!
curtailing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority
could hamper regulations far beyond climate.
“If people think the federal government should be there to ensure that Americans have a basic level of health, safety and environmental protection,
they should be very worried about these decisions,”
a legal philosophy called the “major questions doctrine,”
which posits that regulations of substantial national significance need to have clear authorization from Congress.
Supreme Court took a new approach.
“It’s applying this doctrine more aggressively,”
the court’s move a “power grab” that will offer “artillery” for future arguments against regulations to address new problems.
in … every regulatory battle, people will cite this case and this doctrine as a particular set of hurdles that agencies have to overcome,”
the major questions doctrine would now be a “permanent feature and restriction on regulation” following the ruling.
the courts are going to patrol the administrative state,” Steve Bannon is in non-stop orgasm
a chilling effect on how agencies approach rulemaking going forward.
“This makes it more difficult for agencies to regulate, unquestionably,”
A future court could decide that a particular EPA regulation to protect water quality is simply too major and invalidate it as illegal,”
regulations that deal with new problems, or that deal with existing problems in new ways, will be most at risk.
the doctrine could be used is to block Title IX regulations that have
implications for how universities handle sexual misconduct allegations. yay, rape rape rape college dudes
this court saying, ‘Nobody in Congress thought that gave the federal government the right to establish a code of student conduct for every single school in the country,’”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...regs-in-danger
people who already labeled this nation as a hole, ed and un able, now fretting over the possible soiling of the same country.
You hate to see it.
Reckless endangerment. Careless and imprudent driving. Don't run stop signs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
