3 ms·

I’m not a conservative, but this ruling is good because it’s interpreting the law as written, which is the only fair way to apply it. Reducing the politicalizat

by User23 4y ago

I’m not a conservative, but this ruling is good because it’s interpreting the law as written, which is the only fair way to apply it. Reducing the politicalization of the courts by getting judges away from ruling based on their desired policy rather than the law is probably insufficient, but it’s necessary to maintain general confidence in the system over time. If you want policy changes to handle whatever real or imaginary threats you believe you face, then the correct way to deal with that is through the elected branches. They are the ones meant to make policy.

Clent 4y ago
No it's not. Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history. This supreme court has been stomping the other branches of government. Congress created the EPA. If they don't like what they created, it's on them to fix it.
- NeonVice 4y ago
  Congress created the EPA, but the court ruled that some regulations were outside of their charter. Congress can fix it by updating the EPA charter.
  - Clent 4y ago
    The court should have stayed out of it. At most they should press congress to clarify the charter.
    - NeonVice 4y ago
      That's exactly what the court did. Congress is now forced to clarify the charter if they want the same regulations in place.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  I interpret your comment to mean you agree with this decision. ...yeah no, obviously not. The law has meaning and that meaning is stable. Words mean things. If you are stuck in "Anyone can interpret anything as anything else" land you have fallen prey to being too clever.
- User23 4y ago
  > Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” I suppose that may be a workable political system, but I'm not certain it will produce outcomes anyone will like.
- tristor 4y ago
  You are oversimplifying. Generally speaking, most of the work of SCOTUS is reigning in the Executive because of overzealous regulators. The US regulatory framework is theoretically designed to be based in law, made by the legislature, not the whims of unelected bureaucracy. Congress delegating it’s power is suspect at best, and likely unconstitutional entirely (something something, War Powers Act). Congress created the EPA through the power of the purse, but it’s operated by the Executive, and therefore is not and should not be empowered to unilaterally create regulations with the force of law. Making law is Congress’ job.
  - User23 4y ago
    I agree and the executive branch has at least two major roles in the constitutional law-making process. First is the presidential veto, and second the Vice President in his or her office of President of the Senate can vote on bills from time to time.
sdenton4 4y ago
...said the unelected supreme court, as it enacted sweeping policy changes over the course of two weeks.

by User23 4y ago

Clent 4y ago

No it's not. Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history. This supreme court has been stomping the other branches of government. Congress created the EPA. If they don't like what they created, it's on them to fix it.

NeonVice 4y ago
Congress created the EPA, but the court ruled that some regulations were outside of their charter. Congress can fix it by updating the EPA charter.
- Clent 4y ago
  The court should have stayed out of it. At most they should press congress to clarify the charter.
  - NeonVice 4y ago
    That's exactly what the court did. Congress is now forced to clarify the charter if they want the same regulations in place.
vorpalhex 4y ago
I interpret your comment to mean you agree with this decision. ...yeah no, obviously not. The law has meaning and that meaning is stable. Words mean things. If you are stuck in "Anyone can interpret anything as anything else" land you have fallen prey to being too clever.
User23 4y ago
> Anyone can interpret anything as anything else, this is proven over and over throughout history. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” I suppose that may be a workable political system, but I'm not certain it will produce outcomes anyone will like.
tristor 4y ago
You are oversimplifying. Generally speaking, most of the work of SCOTUS is reigning in the Executive because of overzealous regulators. The US regulatory framework is theoretically designed to be based in law, made by the legislature, not the whims of unelected bureaucracy. Congress delegating it’s power is suspect at best, and likely unconstitutional entirely (something something, War Powers Act). Congress created the EPA through the power of the purse, but it’s operated by the Executive, and therefore is not and should not be empowered to unilaterally create regulations with the force of law. Making law is Congress’ job.
- User23 4y ago
  I agree and the executive branch has at least two major roles in the constitutional law-making process. First is the presidential veto, and second the Vice President in his or her office of President of the Senate can vote on bills from time to time.

sdenton4 4y ago

...said the unelected supreme court, as it enacted sweeping policy changes over the course of two weeks.