6 ms·

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 intend

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.
  - lasc4r 4y ago
    Congress has been totally broken for years, now the Supreme Court will be.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  > The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people No, they invented that authority for themselves in Marbury v. Madison[1]. Judicial review, the idea that SCOTUS can decide whether the actions of the executive or legislative branch are legal, is contained nowhere in the constitution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
  - zosima 4y ago
    Well, the constitution grants the judiciary branch the final say on all cases of legality. So I don't think it's very controversial that they also have the final say on the legality of the legislative and executive branch's doings. Also of course, this is exactly the separation of powers, which is completely fundamental in all western societies.
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      Obviously it's not controversial now because that's how things have been done for more than 200 years, but the Constitution is far from explicit that they have that power.
  - bumby 4y ago
    How do you read Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution? My reading is that it gives authority to federal courts to determine if a law has or has not been violated. What would the other intent be of creating a judicial branch? (Not said with snark, just curious). "You give (a) Authority to a system of federal courts to judge whether or not a law has been violated..."[1] [1] Findlay, B.A. and Findlay, E.B., 1919. Your Rugged Constitution: How Americas House of Freedom is Planned and Built. -.
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      That's certainly how SCOTUS interpreted it, and a 200 year tradition of interpreting it that has made it so that most people will now interpret it that way, but "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court" hardly makes it clear that they get to decide the powers of the other two branches.
pdonis 4y ago
> Congress intended to grant the EPA broad authority to regulate pollution CO2 is not pollution. People and animals breathe it out. Plants breathe it in. Any such thing is obviously not pollution. The EPA calling it "pollution" does not make it pollution, any more than calling a dog's tail a leg makes it a leg. If Congress wants to grant the EPA authority to regulate things that are obviously not pollution, in order to promote some other policy objective, it needs to say so explicitly. Which is exactly what the Court's opinion says.
- scarmig 4y ago
  None of the parties or judges dispute that CO2 is a pollutant. Even if you personally dispute it, Congress explicitly granted the EPA the authority to determine what's an air pollutant and what's not: > For the purpose of establishing national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, the Administrator shall within 30 days after December 31, 1970, publish, and shall from time to time thereafter revise, a list which includes each air pollutant—emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > None of the parties or judges dispute that CO2 is a pollutant. The fact that all of the parties and judges are calling a tail a leg, still doesn't make it a leg.
    - scarmig 4y ago
      You should feel free to decide that a leg is actually a liver; that just makes you silly. As far as the matter at hand goes, though, it's the EPA that has the authority to make that designation (at least until the SCOTUS decides that only it has that authority).
      - pdonis 4y ago
        > it's the EPA that has the authority to make that designation (at least until the SCOTUS decides that only it has that authority). And the SCOTUS has the authority to rule on whether the EPA's rulemaking is within its statutory authority or not. Which is what it did today. So why are you objecting? Both governmental entities are exercising their authority. The fact that one such exercise, the EPA's, is one you like, and the other such exercise, the Court's is one you don't like, is irrelevant, according to your own logic, just as it's irrelevant, according to your own logic, that the EPA's rule under review here defies logic, common sense, and the plain meaning of words.

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.
- lasc4r 4y ago
  Congress has been totally broken for years, now the Supreme Court will be.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
> The Supreme Courts job is to determine if something was legal, they were granted the authority by the people No, they invented that authority for themselves in Marbury v. Madison[1]. Judicial review, the idea that SCOTUS can decide whether the actions of the executive or legislative branch are legal, is contained nowhere in the constitution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
- zosima 4y ago
  Well, the constitution grants the judiciary branch the final say on all cases of legality. So I don't think it's very controversial that they also have the final say on the legality of the legislative and executive branch's doings. Also of course, this is exactly the separation of powers, which is completely fundamental in all western societies.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    Obviously it's not controversial now because that's how things have been done for more than 200 years, but the Constitution is far from explicit that they have that power.
- bumby 4y ago
  How do you read Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution? My reading is that it gives authority to federal courts to determine if a law has or has not been violated. What would the other intent be of creating a judicial branch? (Not said with snark, just curious). "You give (a) Authority to a system of federal courts to judge whether or not a law has been violated..."[1] [1] Findlay, B.A. and Findlay, E.B., 1919. Your Rugged Constitution: How Americas House of Freedom is Planned and Built. -.
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    That's certainly how SCOTUS interpreted it, and a 200 year tradition of interpreting it that has made it so that most people will now interpret it that way, but "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court" hardly makes it clear that they get to decide the powers of the other two branches.

pdonis 4y ago

> Congress intended to grant the EPA broad authority to regulate pollution CO2 is not pollution. People and animals breathe it out. Plants breathe it in. Any such thing is obviously not pollution. The EPA calling it "pollution" does not make it pollution, any more than calling a dog's tail a leg makes it a leg. If Congress wants to grant the EPA authority to regulate things that are obviously not pollution, in order to promote some other policy objective, it needs to say so explicitly. Which is exactly what the Court's opinion says.

scarmig 4y ago
None of the parties or judges dispute that CO2 is a pollutant. Even if you personally dispute it, Congress explicitly granted the EPA the authority to determine what's an air pollutant and what's not: > For the purpose of establishing national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, the Administrator shall within 30 days after December 31, 1970, publish, and shall from time to time thereafter revise, a list which includes each air pollutant—emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare;
- pdonis 4y ago
  > None of the parties or judges dispute that CO2 is a pollutant. The fact that all of the parties and judges are calling a tail a leg, still doesn't make it a leg.
  - scarmig 4y ago
    You should feel free to decide that a leg is actually a liver; that just makes you silly. As far as the matter at hand goes, though, it's the EPA that has the authority to make that designation (at least until the SCOTUS decides that only it has that authority).
    - pdonis 4y ago
      > it's the EPA that has the authority to make that designation (at least until the SCOTUS decides that only it has that authority). And the SCOTUS has the authority to rule on whether the EPA's rulemaking is within its statutory authority or not. Which is what it did today. So why are you objecting? Both governmental entities are exercising their authority. The fact that one such exercise, the EPA's, is one you like, and the other such exercise, the Court's is one you don't like, is irrelevant, according to your own logic, just as it's irrelevant, according to your own logic, that the EPA's rule under review here defies logic, common sense, and the plain meaning of words.