Are you just repeating that the OP said? > On the other hand, if you read liberal dissents, they’re mostly about what they think appropriate policy should be.

Are you just repeating that the OP said? > On the other hand, if you read liberal dissents, they’re mostly about what they think appropriate policy should be. The Supreme Court is not supposed to set policy. It's only supposed to rule on if the policy set by others (Congress) is constitutional or not. If the EPA could do anthing to stop emmisions, banning power plants from existing at all would satisfy "do anything to stop emmisions", so would "depopulating the planet" (no people, no need for power plants). Those seems like they make it pretty clear they need specific limits. They were given specific limits. The court confirmed that. Congress needs to increase what they're allowed to regulate and how if they want more power. It's frustrating that that's so hard to come by but it's hard to imagine how else it could be