60 ms·
I really don't understand the decision. In my mental model the executive branch exists to implement the laws that Congress passes, Congress deliberately leaves
by 40acres 4y ago
I really don't understand the decision. In my mental model the executive branch exists to implement the laws that Congress passes, Congress deliberately leaves leeway in laws to give the executive branch flexibility, this flexibility has been previously affirmed by the court decision Chevron v. NRDC.
This decision seems to give more power to Congress but on net I think it makes the laws Congress passes weaker because it strips away the effectiveness of the implementation.
- nradov 4y agoThat's not really how it works. If Congress wants the executive branch to have leeway then they need to explicitly grant it.
- _jal 4y agoCorrection: That's exactly how it worked until a large change in the court composition decided to change the rules. People like to pretend that SCOTUS decisions are retroactively true, that somehow they're discovering legal nuances previously overlooked. That's not how it works. As the cliche goes, they're not final because they're right, they're right because they're final.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> how it worked until a large change in the court composition decided to change the rules FDR created the modern administrative state. Chevron was decided in the 80s. None of this is how it’s always been.
- _jal 4y agoQuibble all you like, it has been that way for living memory, and reversing this is going to cause an enormous amount of chaos, because the modern state is built on these assumptions. This is not some minor change, you're going to throw the federal government into chaos. I know that's the goal for a lot of people, but they should have the courage to admit that.
- phpisthebest 4y agoFor many of us this is a welcome change, the roll back of the administrative state is very very much needed
- throwaway0a5e 4y agoDiscussions about the EPA seem to have to magical ability to make people forget that gems like the DEA and DHS exist. Heck, until recently the FCC was headed by a corporate shill.
- phpisthebest 4y agoPeople take a very narrow look at the issue, they fail to see the forest for the trees
- nradov 4y agoAvoiding chaos is not a valid reason for allowing a legal injustice to persist even one day longer. I support legal mandates to reduce emissions, but it needs to be done the right way as an Act of Congress, not by unelected bureaucrats creatively reinterpreting a law to suit their political goals.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y agoChevron deference is executive assent of Congress right to delegate. The Supreme Court is flouting precedent and re-legislating from the bench.
- _jal 4y ago> Avoiding chaos is not a valid reason for allowing a legal injustice to persist even one day longer. Wow, people are sure selective about which injustices they cannot tolerate "even one day longer". > I support legal mandates to reduce emissions Bullshit. You are doing the opposite and know perfectly well what's going to happen.
- jayd16 4y agoWhat is the argument here? You want us to use law theory from before the industrial revolution or something?
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y agoLike the federalist hacks quoting 13th century jurisprudence??
- CrazyPyroLinux 4y agoSome sort of pesky "constitution...?"
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> What is the argument here? That limiting the administrative state is far from a monumental changing of the rules. Nobody is challenging the administrative state per se. The major doctrines principle is just being expanded, which limits Chevron, something that only came into being a few decades ago.
- _jal 4y agoThat's an OK summary of FedSoc talking points, but you're missing some of the barbs. Might want to try again. The effective reuslt of the non-delegation doctrine is that, when Republicans do not like a policy outcome, Congress is required to employ a time machine to give explicit instructions to an agency decades ahead of time.
- cmurf 4y agoThe dissent indicates the power is already explicitly granted in the EPA statute plain as day. It really isn't clear to me what language would satisfy the majority.
- nostromo 4y ago“The EPA may regulate carbon emissions” would do the trick.
- cmurf 4y agoWhy do you propose every single atom needs to be explicitly listed? 42 USC 7411 does grant EPA the power to determine what emissions need regulating, and how to best regulate them.
- throwaway5752 4y agoNow repeat for every chemical, and you have an unregulated mess, as this decision intends to create.
- nostromo 4y ago"The EPA may regulate emissions that contribute to global climate change" would also do the trick. These laws are all quite old, many pre-date the EPA even and are from the 1950s and 1960s. They were clearly written for toxic pollutants, which carbon is not.
- throwaway5752 4y agoLet me ask you plainly: are you a lawyer? You seem well informed, but not lawyerly. I feel like you have good theoretical knowledge of how this should work in an ideal world, but not as much understanding of how it works in practice.
- coldcode 4y agoCongress won't act, the Executive isn't permitted to do much even with what they were given by Congress, and the People are powerless to do anything unless 100% of them vote, which never happens, and even then may be overruled in many places. No future for any of us I guess.
- lbotos 4y ago> People are powerless to do anything unless 100% of them vote I'm not following this logic? Why do we need 100% of people to vote? I assume you mean to "oust ineffective elected officials" but I suspect that there are many people that don't vote because they are "happy" and don't feel at risk of their desired official being outed. But again, I might be off base. Hoping you can clarify more of what you meant.
- jefurii 4y agoMost of the public cares about climate change and wants the government to do something. The overwhelming majority of the public supports abortion in some form or other. If they actually voted maybe we could change things, but lots of people just don't vote. Having participated in several cycles of political organizing, the actual ground game is Get Out The Vote (GOTV): not trying to get people to change their minds, but getting people to just get off their asses.
- akavi 4y ago> Most of the public cares about climate change and wants the government to do something Most of the public cares about climate change and wants the government to do something so long as it doesn't cost them anything (Or more precisely, more than 10 $/mo)[0]. Or you can just see the consternation about gas prices right now to predict how well any climate change related regulation that actually materially affected carbon production would go. [0]: https://apnorc.org/projects/what-americans-think-about-the-economy/ https://apnorc.org/projects/what-americans-think-about-the-e...
- shrimpx 4y ago
- xxpor 4y agoYou have to know the actual motivation: The point is to limit the administrative state and move power to congress (as you said), because federal rule making is relatively open, and the administration has experts. If it moves to congress, they'll just take the legislation lobbyists hand them and pass it, because they don't have the expertise to actually write technical regulations. This is a win for industry.
- InTheArena 4y agoGovernment works off of law, not merely intentions. Intentions can change. Laws are documented. otherwise what’s the keep of random police officer from deciding that they have the ability to regulate the applications on my phone? After all, they’re just keeping me safe.
- mullingitover 4y agoLegislation often deliberately leaves interpretation of statutes to the agencies implementing the laws. The legislation can just say "The parks department shall keep the park safe and well-maintained," without specifying what 'safe' means, or how often they collect the trash.
- themaninthedark 4y agoUnder that law, I could clear cut the forest, turn it into a meadow and put up a fence around it to prevent people from getting in.
- mullingitover 4y agoYes, a functioning government depends on parties acting in good faith and assumes everyone is working for the common good, not always achievable when vast sums of money are in play. This case is a great example.
- rayiner 4y agoYes, this is a win for republican democracy, and a loss for "governance by experts."
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
- asdajksah2123 4y agoThe Major Questions doctrine is an invention of the Roberts court that no court before has even considered. So yeah, they made up new rules, and yes, you're right, that the rules they made up to achieve a certain goal indicate that those goals are indeed correct. Edit: The unsaid part of the "Major Questions" doctrine is that what it basically means is that the only decision maker in the US government is the Supreme Court. This Supreme Court has chosen to parse Congress's bills text both strictly and loosely depending on whether it achieved their political priors. Further, they've alternatively decided to use, and disallow the usage of public statements by Congress members and/or the President for the same reason. This is little more than a dismantling of the US govt.
- kemayo 4y agoTo quote Kagan's dissent in this case: "The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the 'major questions doctrine' magically appear as get out-of-text-free cards".
- rufus_foreman 4y ago>> The Major Questions doctrine is an invention of the Roberts court that no court before has even considered "The major questions doctrine originated in two Supreme Court decisions: MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone & Telegraph in 1994 and FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation in 2000." -- https://www.theregreview.org/2021/11/15/revesz-brunstein-regulatory-comments-major-questions-doctrine/ https://www.theregreview.org/2021/11/15/revesz-brunstein-reg... Roberts was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2005.
- bombcar 4y agoWe have 50+ years of Congress delegating authority and blame to various other branches and groups without actually legislating it, which gives politicians perfect cover and someone else to blame. If Congress wants to do something, they can pass the law to do so. Ever since the "it's not a tax healthcare penalty" was upheld by the Court as "yes it is you idiots" it's been painfully clear that Congress wants no part in actually doing their job.
- zionic 4y ago>Congress deliberately leaves leeway in laws This is the crux of the problem. The "Executive branch" is basically the cops. That leeway lets the cops invent law, prosecute you, and potentially imprison you. There's another case where the executive branch effectively acted as the legislator, cops, and the judicial branch (they prosecuted someone for a rule they created and found them guilty, all internally). Congress needs to do these things, via simple and explicit laws that are clear and easy to understand. The role of the executive is _enforcement_, while the judicial arbitrates.
- rayiner 4y agoNobody denies that "Congress deliberately leaves leeway in laws to give the executive branch flexibility." The whole point of this case is that Congress gave the EPA leeway to decide standards and scrubbing technologies for toxic pollutants, and the EPA stretched that leeway far beyond what Congress intended to address a completely different problem involving a non-toxic alleged pollutant.
- 40acres 4y agoThe court has already ruled in Chevron v. NRDC that executive agencies have deference in interpretation of statues if Congress has not explicitly granted that power. The Clean Air act was passed in 1970 to ensure air quality, through science and the advancement of our understanding the EPA has identified CO2 as a toxic pollutant. I don't understand why we need an updated law by Congress when the EPA is much closer to the issue.
- JamesBarney 4y agoBut does Congress or the EPA get to determine that scope? You're arguing that the EPA gets to make that call. The supreme court says it's Congress.