4 ms·

Well the fix here is for Congress to pass a specific law empowering the EPA with explicit authority. If something like that can't make it through congress then

by zionic 4y ago

Well the fix here is for Congress to pass a specific law empowering the EPA with explicit authority. If something like that can't make it through congress then it isn't democratic, and the task then becomes one of convincing the other side. I've the had the anti-coal conversation with plenty of conservatives and they were all open to my point of view. Ultimately this court's decision is a win for democracy, even if it is a (temporary) step back for fighting climate change.

gsibble 4y ago
Agreed. This isn't about climate change, it's about proper procedure as the Constitution sets it up. The EPA went past its mandated purposes as set up by law. Congress needs to pass a new law to give it this power. If it can't, that's their problem. This was a good decision as far too much power has been given to the administrative state to basically make up laws.
- kadoban 4y ago
  The current court is starting with an outcome they like and then writing the decision from there. There is no law that will survive a sufficiently motivated cherry-picking of case facts and legal history.
jimkleiber 4y ago
I agree. So therefore I want us to fix the gridlock in the legislative branch so they can actually legislate. I think the members of Congress have mostly been captured by the political parties, almost automatically voting with their party line, representing their party more than their actual constituencies. If someone represents my state of Michigan, I believe they don't just represent the Democrats or Republicans who voted for them, but that they're supposed to represent all of the people in the state. When they vote along party lines, it says to me they prioritize their party affiliation over their regional one.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  They vote for the money. The elimination of earmarks has made politicians more dependent on the party and good grace of industry for their elections so they have to tow the party line harder and cater to the lobby more whereas back in the day people could vote against their party if they were bringing home something else to make it worthwhile.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    I agree. A friend of mine does a lot of research on Congress and says that getting rid of closed-door committees and committee votes has really increased the power of the parties for reasons you mention: it's hard to negotiate in good faith when people (e.g. lobbyists and party officials) are constantly looking over their shoulders. Earmarks and other things can give them ways to work things out when in private, compromising here and there, and coming up with a bill that will be balanced in the end. I strongly suggest his research[0]. EDIT: Oh, and my friend[1] who does a lot of the research is a ex-NASA scientist, which is one of the reasons I also got excited about his research, as I studied electrical and computer engineering in college and was excited to see an engineering mindset applied to political dynamics. [0]: congressionalresearch.org [1]: https://congressionalresearch.org/JamesDangelo.html https://congressionalresearch.org/JamesDangelo.html
the_gastropod 4y ago
> If something like that can't make it through congress then it isn't democratic Ah, yes. The institution where 41 Senators, representing a mere 22% of the US population can block legislation is the zenith of democracy. Especially when considering the legislation we're talking about is as a response to a court case ruled by 6 judges, 5 of which were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, approved by senators representing fewer citizens than the senators who voted against their approval. Real nice system of democracy.
dsr_ 4y ago
You've almost got it, but you need to go one step further. Congress isn't democratic. Congress is overly concentrated. To begin with, the Senate is absurdly anti-democratic. The 710K residents of Washington, DC don't get a vote there at all. The 600K residents of Wyoming get the same 2 votes as Vermont (620K) and California (39 million). Anything that says that Texas and West Virginia are equal to each other in some mystical sense of having equal weight in decisions that affect the whole country is an ideology not compatible with democracy. Then, the House of Representatives is (a) absurdly gerrymandered and (b) absurdly undersized. One rep per 750,000 people on average, up from one rep per 210,000 people in 1909 and up from one per 34,000 in 1800. Any Constitutional "originalist" who thinks that the House of Representatives is just fine at 435 reps is a hypocrite. At one per 34,000, we need about ten thousand reps to meet the standards of representation that the founders thought was reasonable. Oddly, that would solve the other major problem with the House of Representatives: the 2 year term is fine if the rep only has to persuade the majority of 34,000 people or so. A small campaign can win. A simple requirement that all districts must be compact, convex and allocated according to a geographic/population algorithm would cure the gerrymandering, too.
- alex_sf 4y ago
  > Anything that says that Texas and West Virginia are equal to each other in some mystical sense of having equal weight in decisions that affect the whole country is an ideology not compatible with democracy. It's completely compatible with democracy, and makes perfect sense under federalism. The federal government was not meant to have the expansive powers it does; the problem is that via things like the commerce clause it's massively overstepped the boundaries that were supposed to contain it.
  - dsr_ 4y ago
    If you want to argue "meant to", you must reference that to a time when the USA was about 17 states, all of roughly equal power, economy and population. 1803, just before the Louisiana Purchase. There were 12 Constitutional amendments. "supposed to" is in the same light. The system that worked pretty well for about 5 million people in the pre-industrial age (and assumed that everyone not male, white, and a land-owner was distinctly second-class) does not work so well 200 years later in a world power of 330 million people.
Drunk_Engineer 4y ago
Congress already has the option of overriding/veto any EPA adopted regulation. It has never used that power to remove regulation of CO2. This is not a win for democracy -- quite the opposite.
enragedcacti 4y ago
> Ultimately this court's decision is a win for democracy We've now learned that the supreme court will take up a case concerning the "Independent legislature theory" which, if affirmed, would allow state legislatures to unilaterally overrule their constituent's votes in both state and federal elections. I can't wait to see the majority maintain its staunch pro-democracy stance that it takes in this case in the terms to come.

by zionic 4y ago

gsibble 4y ago

Agreed. This isn't about climate change, it's about proper procedure as the Constitution sets it up. The EPA went past its mandated purposes as set up by law. Congress needs to pass a new law to give it this power. If it can't, that's their problem. This was a good decision as far too much power has been given to the administrative state to basically make up laws.

kadoban 4y ago
The current court is starting with an outcome they like and then writing the decision from there. There is no law that will survive a sufficiently motivated cherry-picking of case facts and legal history.

jimkleiber 4y ago

I agree. So therefore I want us to fix the gridlock in the legislative branch so they can actually legislate. I think the members of Congress have mostly been captured by the political parties, almost automatically voting with their party line, representing their party more than their actual constituencies. If someone represents my state of Michigan, I believe they don't just represent the Democrats or Republicans who voted for them, but that they're supposed to represent all of the people in the state. When they vote along party lines, it says to me they prioritize their party affiliation over their regional one.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
They vote for the money. The elimination of earmarks has made politicians more dependent on the party and good grace of industry for their elections so they have to tow the party line harder and cater to the lobby more whereas back in the day people could vote against their party if they were bringing home something else to make it worthwhile.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  I agree. A friend of mine does a lot of research on Congress and says that getting rid of closed-door committees and committee votes has really increased the power of the parties for reasons you mention: it's hard to negotiate in good faith when people (e.g. lobbyists and party officials) are constantly looking over their shoulders. Earmarks and other things can give them ways to work things out when in private, compromising here and there, and coming up with a bill that will be balanced in the end. I strongly suggest his research[0]. EDIT: Oh, and my friend[1] who does a lot of the research is a ex-NASA scientist, which is one of the reasons I also got excited about his research, as I studied electrical and computer engineering in college and was excited to see an engineering mindset applied to political dynamics. [0]: congressionalresearch.org [1]: https://congressionalresearch.org/JamesDangelo.html https://congressionalresearch.org/JamesDangelo.html

the_gastropod 4y ago

> If something like that can't make it through congress then it isn't democratic Ah, yes. The institution where 41 Senators, representing a mere 22% of the US population can block legislation is the zenith of democracy. Especially when considering the legislation we're talking about is as a response to a court case ruled by 6 judges, 5 of which were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote, approved by senators representing fewer citizens than the senators who voted against their approval. Real nice system of democracy.

dsr_ 4y ago

You've almost got it, but you need to go one step further. Congress isn't democratic. Congress is overly concentrated. To begin with, the Senate is absurdly anti-democratic. The 710K residents of Washington, DC don't get a vote there at all. The 600K residents of Wyoming get the same 2 votes as Vermont (620K) and California (39 million). Anything that says that Texas and West Virginia are equal to each other in some mystical sense of having equal weight in decisions that affect the whole country is an ideology not compatible with democracy. Then, the House of Representatives is (a) absurdly gerrymandered and (b) absurdly undersized. One rep per 750,000 people on average, up from one rep per 210,000 people in 1909 and up from one per 34,000 in 1800. Any Constitutional "originalist" who thinks that the House of Representatives is just fine at 435 reps is a hypocrite. At one per 34,000, we need about ten thousand reps to meet the standards of representation that the founders thought was reasonable. Oddly, that would solve the other major problem with the House of Representatives: the 2 year term is fine if the rep only has to persuade the majority of 34,000 people or so. A small campaign can win. A simple requirement that all districts must be compact, convex and allocated according to a geographic/population algorithm would cure the gerrymandering, too.

alex_sf 4y ago
> Anything that says that Texas and West Virginia are equal to each other in some mystical sense of having equal weight in decisions that affect the whole country is an ideology not compatible with democracy. It's completely compatible with democracy, and makes perfect sense under federalism. The federal government was not meant to have the expansive powers it does; the problem is that via things like the commerce clause it's massively overstepped the boundaries that were supposed to contain it.
- dsr_ 4y ago
  If you want to argue "meant to", you must reference that to a time when the USA was about 17 states, all of roughly equal power, economy and population. 1803, just before the Louisiana Purchase. There were 12 Constitutional amendments. "supposed to" is in the same light. The system that worked pretty well for about 5 million people in the pre-industrial age (and assumed that everyone not male, white, and a land-owner was distinctly second-class) does not work so well 200 years later in a world power of 330 million people.

Drunk_Engineer 4y ago

Congress already has the option of overriding/veto any EPA adopted regulation. It has never used that power to remove regulation of CO2. This is not a win for democracy -- quite the opposite.

enragedcacti 4y ago

> Ultimately this court's decision is a win for democracy We've now learned that the supreme court will take up a case concerning the "Independent legislature theory" which, if affirmed, would allow state legislatures to unilaterally overrule their constituent's votes in both state and federal elections. I can't wait to see the majority maintain its staunch pro-democracy stance that it takes in this case in the terms to come.