8 ms·

> I agree with the Court that Congress never intended to grant the EPA that authority Congress did grant the EPA that authority; the ruling is an objection to

> I agree with the Court that Congress never intended to grant the EPA that authority Congress did grant the EPA that authority; the ruling is an objection to the principle that Congress can make broad grants of authority. Delegation of authority is key to every effective organization. Imagine corporations were governed like this, and any time a new service or feature was rolled out, the Board of Directors would have to explicitly sign off on it. Work would grind to a halt. Which is exactly the point of this ruling, to make the federal government even more ineffectual than it already is as part of an ideological crusade.

dahfizz 4y ago
> Congress did grant the EPA that authority; the ruling is an objection to the principle that Congress can make broad grants of authority. That's entirely incorrect, please read the article.
- scarmig 4y ago
  To be explicit, Congress granted the EPA the authority to set "a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction." The majority believes that's too broad a grant and that usage of that authority needs a second authorization from Congress.
  - lasc4r 4y ago
    I wonder if the majority cares about climate change. My guess is they don't.
  - jaybrendansmith 4y ago
    Congress: "No, we really, really mean it this time." What the actual fuck?
lolinder 4y ago
From the end of the ruling (emphasis added) [0]: > Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible "solution to the crisis of the day." But it is not plausible that Congress gave the EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. It seems pretty clear that Congress does have the authority to delegate, but that the Court ruled that Congress didn't intend to do so. This ruling places the ball firmly in Congress's court, it doesn't rule that Congress cannot act. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
- scarmig 4y ago
  "Clear delegation" is the key phrase, there. The Court rejects the idea that Congress can create broad grants of authority and instead propounds the idea that it has to explicitly authorize every potential scenario.
  - tmaly 4y ago
    Consider this. What would happen to the powers of future Congresses if SCOTUS had ruled the other way? Would any agency granted broad authority be able to override the wishes of a future Congress? What would happen to our form of representative government under this case?
  - lolinder 4y ago
    They talk elsewhere about "clear delegation", and it doesn't have to do with the scope of the delegation, it has to do with its precision: > Thus, in certain extraordinary cases, both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent make us “reluctant to read into ambiguous statutory text” the delegation claimed to be lurking there. To convince us otherwise, something more than a merely plausible textual basis for the agency action is necessary. The agency instead must point to “clear congressional authorization” for the power it claims. I can find nowhere where they say that Congress cannot delegate broad powers, only that it's not obvious that Congress did or that they intended to. Do you have a citation to the contrary, or are you making assumptions based on the news coverage?
citilife 4y ago
> Congress did grant the EPA that authority This is objectively false, the supreme court just ruled that. Like it or not, they are the sole authority on said issues / decisions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- scarmig 4y ago
  If six justices on the Supreme Court call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. A tail is a tail, regardless of what you call it. Congress intended to grant the EPA broad authority to regulate pollution, but the SCOTUS said that that's invalid.
  - citilife 4y ago
    Yes, the dog would still have four. The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people. If we want to change that, congress (the people's representation) can amend the constitution. Congress can also clarify by granted the authority (as the justices explained). At any point in the last 7 years (while this court case has been ongoing), congress could have enacted the laws, they discussed them. The regulations didn't pass. The supreme court pointed that out. Why would congress put forth these rules if they had already granted the EPA the authorization? -- because the EPA never had such authority.
    - scarmig 4y ago
      > The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people :laughcryemoji > Congress can also clarify by granted the authority (as the justices explained). At any point in the last 7 years (while this court case has been ongoing), congress could have enacted the laws, they discussed them. There's no need to explicitly grant authority for authority already granted. If Congress wanted to change the scope of the EPA's authority, Congress could just as well have passed a law stripping the EPA of that authority. It didn't.
rayiner 4y ago
That is incorrect. Congress cannot broadly delegate authority to make rules with the force of law on the executive branch. Even liberals begrudgingly accept separation of powers. Regulatory agencies exist based on the theory that Congress can leave it to agencies to "fill in the details" of a law as part of the executive discretion about how to enforce the law. In the Clean Air Act, Congress gave the EPA authority to pick toxic pollutants to regulate, and to specify the use of particular emissions control technologies like scrubbers. What this case was about was whether this grant of authority could be fairly read to encompass telling entire industries what power generation mix they must use. This is not like requiring the CEO to sign off on a minor bug fix. The reasoning of the Court is that industry-wide changes in power generation mix have sweeping effects on the country, and require specific authorization. Even huge companies routinely require executive approval for major new initiatives that will incur major costs to the company.
- scarmig 4y ago
  From the text of the Clean Air Act itself: > (1) The term "standard of performance" means a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. Congress intentionally broadly authorized the EPA to determine and implement the best system for reducing pollutants such as carbon emissions, and used language pursuant to that. Just because it offends certain Justices' sensibilities and ideological predilections doesn't mean that they can choose to ignore clearly stated parts of lawfully enacted statutes.
- cogman10 4y ago
  > That is incorrect. Congress cannot broadly delegate authority to make rules with the force of law on the executive branch. Even liberals begrudgingly accept separation of powers. DEA, ATF, FDA, OSHA, CFPB, CDC, EPA, and FCC would all tend to disagree with this assessment. There IS a separation of powers and checks and balances. Congress even passed the "congressional review act" in 1996 which allows them by a majority vote to undo an agencies decision if they feel they've stepped too far. > The reasoning of the Court is that industry-wide changes in power generation mix have sweeping effects on the country, and require specific authorization. Again, the EPA is checked by both the executive branch AND congress through the CRA. Both of which are checked by the people. Rather than apply straight forward and obvious rules that have been around for at least 30 years (Chevron deference), the supreme court has decided to take a politically activist route and instead decide cases based on their own political leanings. You can predict, like clockwork, how the justices will vote on any case with any sort of political implication based on who appointed them. Isn't that distressing? Doesn't that signal that maybe there's a major problem here? They are picking the conclusion they want to reach and writing the opinions that support those outcomes. They are legislating from the bench.

dahfizz 4y ago

> Congress did grant the EPA that authority; the ruling is an objection to the principle that Congress can make broad grants of authority. That's entirely incorrect, please read the article.

scarmig 4y ago
To be explicit, Congress granted the EPA the authority to set "a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction." The majority believes that's too broad a grant and that usage of that authority needs a second authorization from Congress.
- lasc4r 4y ago
  I wonder if the majority cares about climate change. My guess is they don't.
- jaybrendansmith 4y ago
  Congress: "No, we really, really mean it this time." What the actual fuck?

lolinder 4y ago

From the end of the ruling (emphasis added) [0]: > Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible "solution to the crisis of the day." But it is not plausible that Congress gave the EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. It seems pretty clear that Congress does have the authority to delegate, but that the Court ruled that Congress didn't intend to do so. This ruling places the ball firmly in Congress's court, it doesn't rule that Congress cannot act. [0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

scarmig 4y ago
"Clear delegation" is the key phrase, there. The Court rejects the idea that Congress can create broad grants of authority and instead propounds the idea that it has to explicitly authorize every potential scenario.
- tmaly 4y ago
  Consider this. What would happen to the powers of future Congresses if SCOTUS had ruled the other way? Would any agency granted broad authority be able to override the wishes of a future Congress? What would happen to our form of representative government under this case?
- lolinder 4y ago
  They talk elsewhere about "clear delegation", and it doesn't have to do with the scope of the delegation, it has to do with its precision: > Thus, in certain extraordinary cases, both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent make us “reluctant to read into ambiguous statutory text” the delegation claimed to be lurking there. To convince us otherwise, something more than a merely plausible textual basis for the agency action is necessary. The agency instead must point to “clear congressional authorization” for the power it claims. I can find nowhere where they say that Congress cannot delegate broad powers, only that it's not obvious that Congress did or that they intended to. Do you have a citation to the contrary, or are you making assumptions based on the news coverage?

citilife 4y ago

> Congress did grant the EPA that authority This is objectively false, the supreme court just ruled that. Like it or not, they are the sole authority on said issues / decisions.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
scarmig 4y ago
If six justices on the Supreme Court call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. A tail is a tail, regardless of what you call it. Congress intended to grant the EPA broad authority to regulate pollution, but the SCOTUS said that that's invalid.
- citilife 4y ago
  Yes, the dog would still have four. The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people. If we want to change that, congress (the people's representation) can amend the constitution. Congress can also clarify by granted the authority (as the justices explained). At any point in the last 7 years (while this court case has been ongoing), congress could have enacted the laws, they discussed them. The regulations didn't pass. The supreme court pointed that out. Why would congress put forth these rules if they had already granted the EPA the authorization? -- because the EPA never had such authority.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    > The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people :laughcryemoji > Congress can also clarify by granted the authority (as the justices explained). At any point in the last 7 years (while this court case has been ongoing), congress could have enacted the laws, they discussed them. There's no need to explicitly grant authority for authority already granted. If Congress wanted to change the scope of the EPA's authority, Congress could just as well have passed a law stripping the EPA of that authority. It didn't.

rayiner 4y ago

That is incorrect. Congress cannot broadly delegate authority to make rules with the force of law on the executive branch. Even liberals begrudgingly accept separation of powers. Regulatory agencies exist based on the theory that Congress can leave it to agencies to "fill in the details" of a law as part of the executive discretion about how to enforce the law. In the Clean Air Act, Congress gave the EPA authority to pick toxic pollutants to regulate, and to specify the use of particular emissions control technologies like scrubbers. What this case was about was whether this grant of authority could be fairly read to encompass telling entire industries what power generation mix they must use. This is not like requiring the CEO to sign off on a minor bug fix. The reasoning of the Court is that industry-wide changes in power generation mix have sweeping effects on the country, and require specific authorization. Even huge companies routinely require executive approval for major new initiatives that will incur major costs to the company.

scarmig 4y ago
From the text of the Clean Air Act itself: > (1) The term "standard of performance" means a standard for emissions of air pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. Congress intentionally broadly authorized the EPA to determine and implement the best system for reducing pollutants such as carbon emissions, and used language pursuant to that. Just because it offends certain Justices' sensibilities and ideological predilections doesn't mean that they can choose to ignore clearly stated parts of lawfully enacted statutes.
cogman10 4y ago
> That is incorrect. Congress cannot broadly delegate authority to make rules with the force of law on the executive branch. Even liberals begrudgingly accept separation of powers. DEA, ATF, FDA, OSHA, CFPB, CDC, EPA, and FCC would all tend to disagree with this assessment. There IS a separation of powers and checks and balances. Congress even passed the "congressional review act" in 1996 which allows them by a majority vote to undo an agencies decision if they feel they've stepped too far. > The reasoning of the Court is that industry-wide changes in power generation mix have sweeping effects on the country, and require specific authorization. Again, the EPA is checked by both the executive branch AND congress through the CRA. Both of which are checked by the people. Rather than apply straight forward and obvious rules that have been around for at least 30 years (Chevron deference), the supreme court has decided to take a politically activist route and instead decide cases based on their own political leanings. You can predict, like clockwork, how the justices will vote on any case with any sort of political implication based on who appointed them. Isn't that distressing? Doesn't that signal that maybe there's a major problem here? They are picking the conclusion they want to reach and writing the opinions that support those outcomes. They are legislating from the bench.