5 ms·

It's days like these where you really wish there would be some sort of legislative body that could do something about this sort of thing.

by ATsch 4y ago

rat87 4y ago
They did by creating departments and delegating to them
- madengr 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- googlryas 4y ago
  I think the issue here is that the USSC says that isn't really what the legislative branch did.
  - drewbug01 4y ago
    And that, itself, is a very novel view. The EPA isn't exactly a new agency, and the authority delegated to it has been broadly agreed upon for decades.
    - googlryas 4y ago
      That's my problem with these rulings...I can understand how they make sense even if the outcome is a negative one from my perspective, but what kind of world are we going to live in if these huge changes keep getting handed down from courts allowing things sometimes, disallowing them other times, depending on the viewpoints of those who sit on the courts.
      - drewbug01 4y ago
        Honestly, I don't believe that courts should never change their minds. I think a healthy government, in fact, must change with the times. Of course, there's a lot of debate about "how much" and "when" and "how" - which is perfectly reasonable. That said - in the past the SCOTUS has typically tried not to make massive, sweeping changes, unless truly warranted. And even then, they typically make massive, sweeping changes only in instances that expand rights or eliminate harm. They used to try very hard not to cause undue harm with their rulings. Think about something like the cases that legalized same-sex marriage: a big, sweeping change, to be sure - but the only "harm" from that change was that some bigots now have to recognize a marriage they would prefer not to (and only in the capacity as a government official, or in that of a public business - they remain quite free to be as hateful as they like otherwise). Even though the change was large, the fallout was quite minimal (despite breathless predictions to the contrary by conservatives clearly arguing in bad-faith). Sadly the court seems to have abandoned that general principle. This ruling is immensely harmful, not just to the EPA but to the general regulatory state that Congress explicitly created over the years. The fallout from this ruling will be vast, and agencies are going to find themselves increasingly unable to actually regulate anything as they find themselves constantly tied up in court. It's going to cause a lot of very real harm to a lot of people in the country, and we will be feeling its effects for a very long time.
        googlryas 4y ago
        I agree 100% with your post. Clearly the USSC has made monumental mistakes in the past, so you don't want it to be infallible. But, you also don't want it to be subject to the vagaries of the short term, where balance may lie one way or the other based on a certain appointment or a momentary lopsidedness. Maybe requiring a 6-3 vote to overturn USSC rulings? But then who enforces that? I don't think Congress could pass that law?

It's days like these where you really wish there would be some sort of legislative body that could do something about this sort of thing.

by ATsch 4y ago

It's days like these where you really wish there would be some sort of legislative body that could do something about this sort of thing.

rat87 4y ago

They did by creating departments and delegating to them

madengr 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
googlryas 4y ago
I think the issue here is that the USSC says that isn't really what the legislative branch did.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  And that, itself, is a very novel view. The EPA isn't exactly a new agency, and the authority delegated to it has been broadly agreed upon for decades.
  - googlryas 4y ago
    That's my problem with these rulings...I can understand how they make sense even if the outcome is a negative one from my perspective, but what kind of world are we going to live in if these huge changes keep getting handed down from courts allowing things sometimes, disallowing them other times, depending on the viewpoints of those who sit on the courts.
    - drewbug01 4y ago
      Honestly, I don't believe that courts should never change their minds. I think a healthy government, in fact, must change with the times. Of course, there's a lot of debate about "how much" and "when" and "how" - which is perfectly reasonable. That said - in the past the SCOTUS has typically tried not to make massive, sweeping changes, unless truly warranted. And even then, they typically make massive, sweeping changes only in instances that expand rights or eliminate harm. They used to try very hard not to cause undue harm with their rulings. Think about something like the cases that legalized same-sex marriage: a big, sweeping change, to be sure - but the only "harm" from that change was that some bigots now have to recognize a marriage they would prefer not to (and only in the capacity as a government official, or in that of a public business - they remain quite free to be as hateful as they like otherwise). Even though the change was large, the fallout was quite minimal (despite breathless predictions to the contrary by conservatives clearly arguing in bad-faith). Sadly the court seems to have abandoned that general principle. This ruling is immensely harmful, not just to the EPA but to the general regulatory state that Congress explicitly created over the years. The fallout from this ruling will be vast, and agencies are going to find themselves increasingly unable to actually regulate anything as they find themselves constantly tied up in court. It's going to cause a lot of very real harm to a lot of people in the country, and we will be feeling its effects for a very long time.
      - googlryas 4y ago
        I agree 100% with your post. Clearly the USSC has made monumental mistakes in the past, so you don't want it to be infallible. But, you also don't want it to be subject to the vagaries of the short term, where balance may lie one way or the other based on a certain appointment or a momentary lopsidedness. Maybe requiring a 6-3 vote to overturn USSC rulings? But then who enforces that? I don't think Congress could pass that law?