3 ms·

Congress could just as easily limit the powers of the EPA via vote now. This remedy still exists. The court overstepped, again, and in an unsurprisingly partis

by juve1996 4y ago

Congress could just as easily limit the powers of the EPA via vote now. This remedy still exists. The court overstepped, again, and in an unsurprisingly partisan way. Just what our country needs from its institutions...

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
Help me understand... The court which is voted on by representatives asked that the representatives enact the laws of land - their primary stated responsibility - instead of relying on unelected, unaccountable, and whim-shifting bureaucracies to determine law on their own as they see fit. And this is the court overstepping?
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  The bureaucracies are much more accountable than the courts. Congress can limit them at will, and so can the executive, at any time. And the head bureaucrats are not only appointed by elected representatives, unlike supreme court judges, they can be relieved of their powers at any time for any reason. The EPA wasn't determining law on their own. Congress decided to entrust them with the authority to regulate emissions of pollutants explicitly, and both Congress and the Executive can at any time limit their action if they feel like the EPA is overstepping. They did not, because both Congress and the Executive feels like the EPA is acting as they should.
  - mc32 4y ago
    The EPA can regulate pollution emissions --what the court said is they can't regulate the thing that produces emissions. Meaning, you can use the thing that causes pollution, if you use technology or any means to limit the emissions at or below those allowed by the regulations.
- juve1996 4y ago
  Representatives do not vote for supreme court justices. Congress has the power to enact laws. If they give authority to some agency, that agency now has that authority. Congress gave certain authority to the EPA and more through the Clean Air Act. Congress can, after the fact, revoke, or add, or change authority, at any time, if there is enough support. There isn't enough support - because many people in this country have elected representatives that don't support that initiative. It's quite clear that the powers granted by the people (e.g. congress and the presidency, directly elected by the people, unlike the court) to the EPA through law (and the clean air act), enumerate these powers. These very laws can be repealed by further legislative action. This isn't a case of constitutionality and thus the court oversteps its power. Let the people repeal the laws if they think they're too bureaucratic.
  - xg15 4y ago
    I think this whole debate is missing the elephant in the room a bit, which is the partisan battle and stalemated congress. In a functioning democracy, would have found some compromise and enacted laws a long time ago - and no questionable procedural hacks would have been necessary.
    - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
      With agencies allowed to create law, it allowed congress to be exist in this dysfunctional state. Now, if anyone wants anything done at all, they’ll have to work together. Despite being irritatingly disproportionately older than the populous they represent, they’ve been allowed to act like children. I see this as a win.
      - xg15 4y ago
        Why would they want to work together? Republicans have reached a particular outcome that is favourable to them with this verdict. Why would they be interested in passing any law that would bring back exactly the environmental protections they wanted to avoid in the first place?
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    > Representatives do not vote for supreme court justices. Friend, what do you think senate confirmation is? Do you not think that is a vote? >If they give authority to some agency, that agency now has that authority. Congress gave certain authority to the EPA and more through the Clean Air Act. Well, nitpicks aside, yes. The problem is the EPA, CDC, ATF, DEA, FBI, and others have gone outside their given authority and created new “laws” (not laws) and this is what the court ruled on today.
    - henearkr 4y ago
      Some senate has voted for them in the past, then the senate changes, the justices do not (except if they die or resign), and then the situation is that the current senate, or any subsequent future senate ever, will not have voted for them, they are absolutely out of any representativity of the will of the population.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago

Help me understand... The court which is voted on by representatives asked that the representatives enact the laws of land - their primary stated responsibility - instead of relying on unelected, unaccountable, and whim-shifting bureaucracies to determine law on their own as they see fit. And this is the court overstepping?

sudosysgen 4y ago
The bureaucracies are much more accountable than the courts. Congress can limit them at will, and so can the executive, at any time. And the head bureaucrats are not only appointed by elected representatives, unlike supreme court judges, they can be relieved of their powers at any time for any reason. The EPA wasn't determining law on their own. Congress decided to entrust them with the authority to regulate emissions of pollutants explicitly, and both Congress and the Executive can at any time limit their action if they feel like the EPA is overstepping. They did not, because both Congress and the Executive feels like the EPA is acting as they should.
- mc32 4y ago
  The EPA can regulate pollution emissions --what the court said is they can't regulate the thing that produces emissions. Meaning, you can use the thing that causes pollution, if you use technology or any means to limit the emissions at or below those allowed by the regulations.
juve1996 4y ago
Representatives do not vote for supreme court justices. Congress has the power to enact laws. If they give authority to some agency, that agency now has that authority. Congress gave certain authority to the EPA and more through the Clean Air Act. Congress can, after the fact, revoke, or add, or change authority, at any time, if there is enough support. There isn't enough support - because many people in this country have elected representatives that don't support that initiative. It's quite clear that the powers granted by the people (e.g. congress and the presidency, directly elected by the people, unlike the court) to the EPA through law (and the clean air act), enumerate these powers. These very laws can be repealed by further legislative action. This isn't a case of constitutionality and thus the court oversteps its power. Let the people repeal the laws if they think they're too bureaucratic.
- xg15 4y ago
  I think this whole debate is missing the elephant in the room a bit, which is the partisan battle and stalemated congress. In a functioning democracy, would have found some compromise and enacted laws a long time ago - and no questionable procedural hacks would have been necessary.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    With agencies allowed to create law, it allowed congress to be exist in this dysfunctional state. Now, if anyone wants anything done at all, they’ll have to work together. Despite being irritatingly disproportionately older than the populous they represent, they’ve been allowed to act like children. I see this as a win.
    - xg15 4y ago
      Why would they want to work together? Republicans have reached a particular outcome that is favourable to them with this verdict. Why would they be interested in passing any law that would bring back exactly the environmental protections they wanted to avoid in the first place?
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  > Representatives do not vote for supreme court justices. Friend, what do you think senate confirmation is? Do you not think that is a vote? >If they give authority to some agency, that agency now has that authority. Congress gave certain authority to the EPA and more through the Clean Air Act. Well, nitpicks aside, yes. The problem is the EPA, CDC, ATF, DEA, FBI, and others have gone outside their given authority and created new “laws” (not laws) and this is what the court ruled on today.
  - henearkr 4y ago
    Some senate has voted for them in the past, then the senate changes, the justices do not (except if they die or resign), and then the situation is that the current senate, or any subsequent future senate ever, will not have voted for them, they are absolutely out of any representativity of the will of the population.