4 ms·

So to recap: the SCOTUS has ruled that the agency established and authorized by Congress to regulate environmental protection does not have the authority to reg

So to recap: the SCOTUS has ruled that the agency established and authorized by Congress to regulate environmental protection does not have the authority to regulate environmental protection. Did I get that right?

beezle 4y ago
I don't think so. Apparently, by my understanding, the issue in this decisions was not regulation of a particular coal plant's emmissions but of pushing utilities to add green capacity to offset GHG emmissions.
Clubber 4y ago
I'm not fluent in the decision yet, but at first glance: It seems congress gave them limited power to regulate environmental protection via a law that was written. The EPA seems to have overstepped its legal boundaries in regulating. Instead of saying, "ah fuck it, let the machine run," the court is forcing congress to actually give it the additional power that it's been using, or to stop.
colincooke 4y ago
This is too broad of a reading. Unfortunately despite the mission statement of organizations they are limited by their own laws and rules. In this case this is a narrowing of a particular reading of a paritcular rule that was used to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. See https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/30/supreme-court-rejects-broad-epa-authority-to-regulate-greenhouse-gases-from-power-plants-developing/ https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/30/supreme-court-rejects-b... for more details
addandsubtract 4y ago
The same SCOTUS that ruled that the agency established and authorized to give birth does not have the authority to regulate birth. Yes.
fzeroracer 4y ago
Yes, and the dissent spells that out clearly. An excerpt from the dissent: > The majority says it is simply “not plausible” that Congress enabled EPA to regulate power plants’ emissions through generation shift- ing. Ante, at 31. But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the “best system of emission reduction” for power plants. §7411(a)(1). The “best system” full stop—no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind relevant here. They were given broad power by congress explicitly. If congress had wanted them to reign in that power or not choose the best system, then they could pull it back at any time. They did not. The court decided that the previous congress was full of idiots and could not fathom future technologies for emission reduction and therefore is moot.
- shrimpx 4y ago
  These literalist justices are of the mind that if it wasn’t explicitly written, then it’s not allowed. Generalist/broad swath language is to be ignored. Only specific instruction is to be interpreted.
  - zeroonetwothree 4y ago
    Only when it’s convenient for their position. For the 2nd amendment they take a very broad reading.
    - shrimpx 4y ago
      Yes good point.
  - redler 4y ago
    Yet they decide other landmark cases with a newly invented test for "deeply rooted history and tradition", through which they can put on their highly subjective amateur historian hats to engineer a desired outcome.
db48x 4y ago
Think of it this way. The FDA has the authority to regulate food, right? So do they get to decide what type of food a restaurant is allowed to serve? No. They don’t get to decide that every county has to have at least 20% Mexican restaurants either. Restaurant owners are allowed to decide for themselves what type of food to serve, and power plant owners are allowed to decide for themselves what type of fuel to use.
redler 4y ago
Simplified: "The manner in which a vanishingly small group of megadonors and think tank funders make, keep, grow, and distribute their money should be nearly impossible to regulate."

beezle 4y ago

I don't think so. Apparently, by my understanding, the issue in this decisions was not regulation of a particular coal plant's emmissions but of pushing utilities to add green capacity to offset GHG emmissions.

Clubber 4y ago

I'm not fluent in the decision yet, but at first glance: It seems congress gave them limited power to regulate environmental protection via a law that was written. The EPA seems to have overstepped its legal boundaries in regulating. Instead of saying, "ah fuck it, let the machine run," the court is forcing congress to actually give it the additional power that it's been using, or to stop.

colincooke 4y ago

This is too broad of a reading. Unfortunately despite the mission statement of organizations they are limited by their own laws and rules. In this case this is a narrowing of a particular reading of a paritcular rule that was used to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. See https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/30/supreme-court-rejects-broad-epa-authority-to-regulate-greenhouse-gases-from-power-plants-developing/ https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/30/supreme-court-rejects-b... for more details

addandsubtract 4y ago

The same SCOTUS that ruled that the agency established and authorized to give birth does not have the authority to regulate birth. Yes.

fzeroracer 4y ago

Yes, and the dissent spells that out clearly. An excerpt from the dissent: > The majority says it is simply “not plausible” that Congress enabled EPA to regulate power plants’ emissions through generation shift- ing. Ante, at 31. But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the “best system of emission reduction” for power plants. §7411(a)(1). The “best system” full stop—no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind relevant here. They were given broad power by congress explicitly. If congress had wanted them to reign in that power or not choose the best system, then they could pull it back at any time. They did not. The court decided that the previous congress was full of idiots and could not fathom future technologies for emission reduction and therefore is moot.

shrimpx 4y ago
These literalist justices are of the mind that if it wasn’t explicitly written, then it’s not allowed. Generalist/broad swath language is to be ignored. Only specific instruction is to be interpreted.
- zeroonetwothree 4y ago
  Only when it’s convenient for their position. For the 2nd amendment they take a very broad reading.
  - shrimpx 4y ago
    Yes good point.
- redler 4y ago
  Yet they decide other landmark cases with a newly invented test for "deeply rooted history and tradition", through which they can put on their highly subjective amateur historian hats to engineer a desired outcome.

db48x 4y ago

Think of it this way. The FDA has the authority to regulate food, right? So do they get to decide what type of food a restaurant is allowed to serve? No. They don’t get to decide that every county has to have at least 20% Mexican restaurants either. Restaurant owners are allowed to decide for themselves what type of food to serve, and power plant owners are allowed to decide for themselves what type of fuel to use.

redler 4y ago

Simplified: "The manner in which a vanishingly small group of megadonors and think tank funders make, keep, grow, and distribute their money should be nearly impossible to regulate."