5 ms·
If congress disagreed with this interpretation, they could pass a law explicitly ruling it out. The power of the supreme court in this regard relies on the fact
by syrrim 4y ago
If congress disagreed with this interpretation, they could pass a law explicitly ruling it out. The power of the supreme court in this regard relies on the fact that congress has great difficulty passing any law at all, and thus whatever interpretation given by the supreme court is likely to persist.
>If you look at the conservative majority opinions, you’ll find that indeed, it’s about the relevant legal issues, ie. what the law actually says.
The dissertation focuses on that. The actual reasoning might be based on something else. The court is strongly interested in projecting an image of being neutral, and of only going off of the wording of laws, rather than involving their own biases. Thus, the majority opinion should be read as an attempt to assign such a motive to their decision, whereas the dissenting opinions attempt to assign the opposite motive. That is, they attempt to suggest that the majority ruled this way because they are insufficiently worried about climate change.
- tablespoon 4y ago> If congress disagreed with this interpretation, they could pass a law explicitly ruling it out. But that would be backwards and wrong (like a default-allow firewall rule).
- xyzzyz 4y agoIn fact, it would be even worse than you say, because it would not be applied in a principled and consistent way. In actual practice, it would be default-allow if convenient, and default-forbid if not.
- rat87 4y agoNo that would be correct. Congress delegated the power of they don't want to do that anymore they should take it away
- tablespoon 4y ago> No that would be correct. Congress delegated the power of they don't want to do that anymore they should take it away No, they didn't. Congress delegating to the EPA (for instance) the power to regulate CFCs to save the ozone layer, does not also delegate the power to the EPA to regulate CO2 to solve global warming.
- ceejayoz 4y agoThe Clean Air Act didn’t say “regulate CFCs”, though. It told the EPA to regulate pollutants. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html/USCODE-2013-title42-chap85-subchapI-partA-sec7412.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html... > The Administrator shall periodically review the list established by this subsection and publish the results thereof and, where appropriate, revise such list by rule, adding pollutants which present, or may present, through inhalation or other routes of exposure, a threat of adverse human health effects (including, but not limited to, substances which are known to be, or may reasonably be anticipated to be, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, which cause reproductive dysfunction, or which are acutely or chronically toxic) or adverse environmental effects whether through ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation, deposition, or otherwise, but not including releases subject to regulation under subsection (r) of this section as a result of emissions to the air.
- iostream24 4y agoYes, it does.