4 ms·

Seems like the main points are that they are not going to propose again the same rules which were ruled unconstitutional, and adjust how aggressive the targets

Seems like the main points are that they are not going to propose again the same rules which were ruled unconstitutional, and adjust how aggressive the targets are. > “It could foreclose a new administration from doing something more ambitious,” she said. I think I get what they're trying to say here, but there's nothing the Supreme Court can do during a moderate administration to "foreclose" more aggressive targets in the future. They can only answer specific questions. Just because the last 1A case was on a relatively uncontroversial form of speech or petition, doesn't mean that 1A is restricted in scope, it just means that it's not particularly harshly tested by the present case. The argument they're making is frankly ridiculous. The Supreme Court not finding a moderate policy to be unconstitutional does not preclude you from trying more aggressive policy in the future in any way.

magicalist 7y ago
> Seems like the main points are that they are not going to propose again the same rules which were ruled unconstitutional It wasn't ruled unconstitutional, it was stayed by the Supreme Court while a lower court decided if the rule was within the EPA's regulatory power under the Clean Air Act. Then the Trump administration came into power and asked the court to put the case on hold while they rewrote the regulations. Maybe that's causing the confusion within the rest of your post, because it isn't a question of constitutionality. If the Supreme Court rules that the EPA "only has authority over environmental infractions at individual plants, like chemical spills and improper handling of hazardous materials", a rule from the EPA like this might not be possible again.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > It wasn't ruled unconstitutional, it was stayed by the Supreme Court... My misunderstanding from all the words going around. > If the Supreme Court rules that the EPA "only has authority over environmental infractions at individual plants, like chemical spills and improper handling of hazardous materials", a rule from the EPA like this might not be possible again. AFAIK the Supreme Court does not tend to rule on whether you "only" have the authority to do something, they're more likely to rule that a given thing is something that you don't have the authority to do. Maybe it's different when it comes to federal agencies, on that I'm ignorant. It seems more likely that the Supreme Court simply takes no issue with the new policy, rather than making a broad pronouncement about what future policy could be.

magicalist 7y ago

> Seems like the main points are that they are not going to propose again the same rules which were ruled unconstitutional It wasn't ruled unconstitutional, it was stayed by the Supreme Court while a lower court decided if the rule was within the EPA's regulatory power under the Clean Air Act. Then the Trump administration came into power and asked the court to put the case on hold while they rewrote the regulations. Maybe that's causing the confusion within the rest of your post, because it isn't a question of constitutionality. If the Supreme Court rules that the EPA "only has authority over environmental infractions at individual plants, like chemical spills and improper handling of hazardous materials", a rule from the EPA like this might not be possible again.

microcolonel 7y ago
> It wasn't ruled unconstitutional, it was stayed by the Supreme Court... My misunderstanding from all the words going around. > If the Supreme Court rules that the EPA "only has authority over environmental infractions at individual plants, like chemical spills and improper handling of hazardous materials", a rule from the EPA like this might not be possible again. AFAIK the Supreme Court does not tend to rule on whether you "only" have the authority to do something, they're more likely to rule that a given thing is something that you don't have the authority to do. Maybe it's different when it comes to federal agencies, on that I'm ignorant. It seems more likely that the Supreme Court simply takes no issue with the new policy, rather than making a broad pronouncement about what future policy could be.