7 ms·

It's not clear to me if the court has ruled broadly regarding delegation here (we still need experts to read through the entire ruling), but they've clearly ind

• nitsky 4y ago
  > That may even be "constitutionally" correct... but it makes the US completely incapable of operating in the modern world. The Constitution was designed to be amended to adapt to a changing world. Let's amend it! However, it is the role of the Supreme Court to apply what the Constitution DOES say, not decide what it SHOULD say.
  • rpearl 4y ago
    how exactly do you propose finding the political will necessary to amend it?
    • midislack 4y ago
      Let’s not. Why would we? This is a victory for the little guy. EDIT: downvoting me isn’t going to save administrative courts and rule making.
    • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      The political will is fairly easy in terms of broad democratic support, but following the rules as they're currently set out, which gives small groups outsized power makes it hard. I'm not sure confusing those two things is helpful though.
  • colinmhayes 4y ago
    > let’s amend it! Lol good luck with that. Zero chance 3/4 of the states agree on literally anything. The culture wars are in full swing, owning the other side is more important than being effective.
    • nitsky 4y ago
      Alternatively, a simple majority in Congress could enact the regulations that were deemed not enforceable by the EPA alone. If a majority in Congress won't authorize it, should they be enacted? I guess it depends on your level of commitment to democracy as an ideal.
      • colinmhayes 4y ago
        A majority in congress isn’t enough to pass regulatory laws. You need 60 votes unless you’ve got 50 willing to overturn the filibuster.
    • lotsofpulp 4y ago
      How is it culture wars when one side does not want to regulate pollution?
      • briandear 4y ago
        Defining CO2 as a pollutant is a problem for me.
        • lotsofpulp 4y ago
          The topic is not defining CO2 as a pollutant. The topic is about controlling proportions of different molecules in the environment to maintain a preferable quality of life for citizens of the world.
        • whatshisface 4y ago
          Before CO2, you had pollutants like NOx, which were toxic pollutants, and CFCs, which were pollutants but not toxic. CFCs were considered pollutants because they damaged the Earth in a way that would have a negative impact on human health, but non-toxic because their harm was not directly effected on the human body. CO2 would be the kind of pollutant that CFCs are. (CFCs are toxic in high concentrations, but the mechanism of their harm when released into the environment is not toxicity.)
  • kilroy123 4y ago
    Agreed. Wasn't that the original intention? That it would be a living document that changes and grows as time goes on? Sadly, it seems near impossible to get consensus to change it now.
    • jonny_eh 4y ago
      There's two mechanisms to keep the constitution alive, amendments and rulings. It's both normal and necessary for judges to consider the complexities and competing interests in cases to determine how the law should be applied. The constitution does not need to enumerate every single right for the court. See the 9th amendment, it specifically says that. It's best to think of the constitution as a framework for how to think of our rights.
  • falcolas 4y ago
    Why, then, has no previous SC viewed its role in this way? Courts have historically always considered the intent of law (constitution) in addition to the word of law (constitution). Why isn't this one? It feels like this SC intends to use pedantry to hobble the federal government. But... why? Because they can?
    • bmelton 4y ago
      It largely had been up until 1984, when Chevron v NRDC was decided in a way that yielded a _deference_ that previously didn't exist in determining the scope of executive branch delegation authority via statutory interpretation - e.g., "Can the agency I've tasked with regulating John also regulate the Boy Scouts of America, of which John is a member?" and "If a regulatory agency can regulate John, can it determine for itself that it may also regulate John's best friend Janet just by reinterpreting the statute for itself without input by the executive or congressional branches?"
      • falcolas 4y ago
        The intent of the EPA is to regulate things that negatively impact the environment. To use your analogies, the EPA can by the word of law regulate John, and by the intent of law should be able to regulate BSA and Janet if they are operating in ways that negatively impact the environment. If you limit an entity to only ever operate by the word and not the intent of law, then it's trivial for malicious (more accurately greedy) actors to skirt regulation, because the government will never be able to keep up with the exploitation of loopholes. Kind of like how the IRS can tax bitcoins, despite cryptocurrencies not being explicitly written into the constitution or tax laws.
        • nradov 4y ago
          That's not how it works. The IRS can tax profits earned from transactions in any medium of exchange (bitcoin or anything else) because Congress has specifically granted them that statutory authority. The EPA does not have blanket authority to regulate anything that might happen to negatively impact the environment. Congress could give them that authority, but has chosen not to do so.
  • willis936 4y ago
  • yladiz 4y ago
    However, even if you read the Constitution and attempt to do apply what it "does say", you still need to interpret it, which is often ambiguous.
    • nitsky 4y ago
      Yes, it's ambiguous and there are no good answers. Conservative justices say "unless the Constitution says it plainly, it's a no". Liberal justices say, "even if the Constitution doesn't say it plainly, they kinda imply it, so it's a yes".
      • kemayo 4y ago
        I do find it amusing (-ly hypocritical) that the big exception to this conservative position is the role of the Supreme Court itself. The entire concept of "judicial review" which is being employed here to allow the justices to strike down laws which they feel are outside the constitution is, famously, not a thing explicitly described in the constitution. Rather it's the very height of "well, it kinda implies we can do that". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
  • cloverich 4y ago
    That's one of those things that is technically true but sweeps a lot of the practicalities under the rug. The constitution was not designed to be changed, it was designed to be VERY DIFFICULT to change. That has important implications when the court suddenly changes or repeals numerous rulings about it all at once. It will take years or decades to adapt.
    • stefan_ 4y ago
      The very constitution that all but guarantees a 50.1/49.9 split in just about every election.
  • vintermann 4y ago
    The role of the court is whatever the hell it pleases. It is the court which gets the final word on what they should be. They do write opinions, but they might as well not since they answer to no one. No one can hold them accountable for blatantly contradicting themselves. They can very theoretically be impeached, but that's a 100% political process - it's equally (im)possible whether they're "fulfilling their role" or not. It's not a very smart system. I'm hoping Americans start questioning some of those patriotic pieties they're taught in their civics classes as a result of the mask-dropping that's happened lately.
    • dawnerd 4y ago
      They can be checked but that’s require an amendment which… yeah good luck. We can’t even get bipartisan bills through.
    • bdowling 4y ago
      > No one can hold them accountable for blatantly contradicting themselves. The democratically elected Congress can pass new laws to overrule most SCOTUS decisions. A few decisions on constitutionality would require an amendment, but those are the exception.
    • nescioquid 4y ago
      > The role of the court is whatever the hell it pleases. Sort of seems like it. It was only in the early 19th century that the Supreme Court gave itself a) the power of legislative review, and b) declared itself the supreme interpreter of the constitution. Since we've been busy upending precedent, why not upend these two precedents as well? > They can very theoretically be impeached In the past, one SC justice resigned under the threat of impeachment over his financial conflict of interest. At least one of our justices has been in violation of ethics rules around financial (and political) conflicts of interest. Several other have lied under oath at their confirmation hearings. I'd at least like to see Congress open some investigations as the first step towards impeachment. But you're right, it is a political process, and I think the democrats are more than happy to simply fundraise off of this rather than exercising any check at all.
  • fassssst 4y ago
    The whole system was designed so wealthy landowners could maintain max power while keeping people complacent. It’s as evident as ever.
• turdit 4y ago
• rlewkov 4y ago
  An attorney friend of mine summarized it by saying that the Supreme Court said it's OK for the EPA to dictate particular emission levels for power plants but not OK to require a plant to change it's method of power generation.
  • jvanderbot 4y ago
    So CO2=0 would be legit? That seems against the spirit / motivation of the court at present moment. My third-hand impression was that they ruled that regulating CO2 at all was outside their responsibilities.
    • nitsky 4y ago
      The deal is that Congress can delegate administrative authority to agencies like the EPA, but answers to "major questions" must be backed up by legislation. Where is the line? Wherever the Supreme Court decides it is.
  • mc32 4y ago
    Wow... if this is the actual impact, that seems... fair. Yeah, you can regulate pollution levels but not go a step further and regulate the inputs that create pollution, unless that power is vested in you by Congress.
• im_down_w_otp 4y ago
  Alternatively, there's always the opportunity to reappropriate Andrew Jackson for the modern era and say, "John Roberts made his decision, now let him enforce it." Were the country so inclined.
  • vintermann 4y ago
    Yes, the ironic thing is that it's not even clear from the US constitution that the court should have the sweeping powers it has, and it certainly hasn't always had them. But like the pope declaring that the pope is infallible, they have decided that they should. And since elected politicians have found it expedient to play along for a long time, now it's not easy for them to go back.
  • josephcsible 4y ago
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  I think that we will adapt and Congress just needs to adjust to a hostile Supreme Court and legislate more. People need to vote.
  • hotpotamus 4y ago
    Yeah, they're ahead of you on that one. Already zapped the Voting Rights Act and ruled that gerrymandering is legal. They're pretty competent at setting up the doom loop for Democracy - that and cutting taxes for the wealthy.
    • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
      Adapt and overcome. I'm against panic and FUD.
      • hotpotamus 4y ago
        You know, it occurs to me that pessimism is pretty inherently toxic, but not always wrong, but optimism can have the same quality.
        • 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
          I do what I can. I donate to principled and pragmatic political campaigns, I vote, and I encourage others to do the same. I've just heard too much doom and gloom that never turns out as bad in practice as I've been led to believe. c'est la vie. One must cultivate one's own garden.
          • hotpotamus 4y ago
            I mean, I see the inflation now, I've lived through a climate disaster already (and quite the opposite of what I expected from global warming). I see the financial meltdown, the accelerating costs of living such that most people in my generation are actually poorer (and less healthy) than Boomers or Gen Xers. Also the president nearly had his vice president hanged by a crowd he whipped up. That last one might have had some entertainment value at least, but seems like it came pretty close to gloom and doom, no? Oh yeah, and the plague that apparently wasn't too bad because it only kills your grandparents and apparently they've had their time. And then the rich conservatives trot out their apparatchiks to tell you that actually you're just a sourpuss because your phone is too entertaining and your TV is too big and that's the most condescending part of it all I think. So yeah, not much of an optimist here I suppose.
• bmelton 4y ago
  For more information on the topic, you can look towards previous decisions creating the modern statutory interpretations (that have been pretty much declining in favor since their inception) The two main cases that framed how much (or little) _deference_ the courts should lend in matters of dispute broadly derive from Chevron v NRDC[1] and Auer v Robbins[2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natura.... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auer_v._Robbins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auer_v._Robbins
• bhupy 4y ago
  > it makes the US completely incapable of operating in the modern world. A less pessimistic outcome is that it forces the US to operate more like the EU, which seems more than capable of operating in the modern world. Whether that actually happens remains to be seen.
• nostromo 4y ago
  > this court will reduce the Federal government to a non-entity very soon This is an absurd take. All Congress needs to do is clarify that they’d like the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. That’s it. The laws regarding pollution control, many of which date back to the 1950s and 1960s, we’re not written with global warming in mind. So the court is saying the EPA needs to get permission from elected officials to regulate carbon.
  • Arubis 4y ago
    > All Congress needs to do… And therein lies the problem. We know Congress is too deadlocked to be effective. Does the Court pushing back on them have a shot at getting the legislative branch to do their jobs?
    • jonstaab 4y ago
      Deadlock is the point, less is more, worse is better.
      • Arubis 4y ago
        I agree that that appears to be the tactic in use. The Court could choose to act with the knowledge that Legislative won't do things, and so behave as the last bastion of relative non-partisanship across the Federal government by allowing the overall public opinion to influence what cases they choose to hear & their eventual outcomes. That would conflict with the letter description of their job, but arguably be in support of the spirit of the system as a whole. They're not going to go that route, though, it appears.
        • whatshisface 4y ago
          A political supreme court would be a Republican supreme court, presently, meaning this is actually a high point for how happy Democrats should be about textual originalism.
          • 4y ago
• usrn 4y ago
  >If you thought China taking over Africa because the US govt was distracted by the Middle East (and isolationism) was bad Wait I thought people (especially the left) morally condemned the rush for Africa as well as modern day "neo colonialism." EDIT: Alright, so I'm getting downvoted. What am I missing?
• JohnGB 4y ago
  I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that the US Supreme Court has no term limits, age limits, or reasonable impeachment mechanism for justices that have unethical behaviour or outright lie on their job interview. The USA is the most "at will employment" country in the world until it comes to the most critical functions of a government. It's absolutely crazy to me.
  • gwbrooks 4y ago
    Term limits are possible with a congressional vote; an impeachment process already exists, and the only time it was invoked against a Justice was 1804. Don't mistake politicians' unwillingness to do something for an inability to do it.
  • RhysU 4y ago
    It could have all of those things, however, by act of Congress and/or constitutional amendment.
• SllX 4y ago
  Yes. The US Fed Govt was never intended to have unlimited and arbitrary power, but POTUS candidates make big promises they don’t really have the power to deliver and try anyway. Right now it still has power very very close to that because even once a mook is elected and finds out he can’t really say, run the economy, he’ll still end up expanding the power of his branch of government falling short of the goal. The path forward is clear for every single political ideology working within the legal Constitutional framework of the United States: get popular support, build a political coalition and then pass laws. Anything that tries to take shortcuts around that process deserves the axe.
• A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  >>That may even be "constitutionally" correct This is the entire purpose of SCOTUS. They are not supposed to wade into politics. It is the same beef I have with Powell and his giving in to political demands. There is a reason you have the power and independence you do. It is not to please everyone. I get that people will disagree, but ends do not justify the means.
• throwoutway 4y ago
  Lots of fear mongering here. The federal government has always been intended to have limited powers & courts have not always been pro-federal gov. That’s an unreasonable thing to posit. What does China and Africa have to do with this? The federal government is explicitly given powers of national security & defense & diplomacy. States don’t get to have embassies or choose foreign policy.