4 ms·

Yes, they essentially nuked Chevron deference through this decision, an extremely pro-voter and pro-transparency move. Good. Edit: I'm contextualizing this op

Yes, they essentially nuked Chevron deference through this decision, an extremely pro-voter and pro-transparency move. Good. Edit: I'm contextualizing this opinion through a legal lens, pointing to what it really does. From now on, Congress will have to pass laws (e.g. Do Their Jobs) to pass environmental legislation, instead of relying on the bureaucratic executive branch. Also expressing that this is good, which is a personal opinion, but I think I'm providing value here.

spaced-out 4y ago
Great for the voters living today, sure. Unfortunately the climate isn't going to wait for us to work through our political issues.
- zackees 4y ago
  If it was really about saving the planet then Nuclear would have been allowed to replace fossil fuel.
  - spaced-out 4y ago
    You think the EPA is blocking nuclear power?
    - stjohnswarts 4y ago
      No but the government is and the EPA is part of the mess.
guelo 4y ago
There is no transparency here. The court elevated the extremely vague made up "major-questions doctrine" which essentially says that the court gets to decide if a regulatory agency's actions are "major" enough that congress has to act. It's the opposite of clarity. There's no principle besides whether the right-wing judge thinks something is major or not.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  It's a loop hole so they can weasel their way out of saying they're not being an activist court when actually they are being activist.
woodruffw 4y ago
Something I don't understand about this interpretation: the decision concerns an interpretation of the Clean Air Act, a law passed by Congress. It's a 60 year old act, sure, but it's an act nonetheless (and one that empowers these kinds of statutory interpretations by the executive branch). Where is the buck being passed, precisely? To me this reads more as a cynical prediction by SCOTUS (that Congress will continue to deadlock, effectively granting victory-by-default to conservative causes). And they probably won't be wrong in that prediction, if the last decade serves as evidence.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> I'm contextualizing this opinion through a legal lens, pointing to what it really does. From now on, Congress will have to pass laws (e.g. Do Their Jobs) to pass environmental legislation No, it doesn't mean that. The Major Question doctrine only even comes into play on its own terms if (1) Congress has, in fact, passed a law, and (2) the matter addressed by the law is entirely withing Congress Constitutional power, and (3) an executive agency is acting entirely in accord with the law passed by Congress.

spaced-out 4y ago

Great for the voters living today, sure. Unfortunately the climate isn't going to wait for us to work through our political issues.

zackees 4y ago
If it was really about saving the planet then Nuclear would have been allowed to replace fossil fuel.
- spaced-out 4y ago
  You think the EPA is blocking nuclear power?
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    No but the government is and the EPA is part of the mess.

guelo 4y ago

There is no transparency here. The court elevated the extremely vague made up "major-questions doctrine" which essentially says that the court gets to decide if a regulatory agency's actions are "major" enough that congress has to act. It's the opposite of clarity. There's no principle besides whether the right-wing judge thinks something is major or not.

stjohnswarts 4y ago
It's a loop hole so they can weasel their way out of saying they're not being an activist court when actually they are being activist.

woodruffw 4y ago

Something I don't understand about this interpretation: the decision concerns an interpretation of the Clean Air Act, a law passed by Congress. It's a 60 year old act, sure, but it's an act nonetheless (and one that empowers these kinds of statutory interpretations by the executive branch). Where is the buck being passed, precisely? To me this reads more as a cynical prediction by SCOTUS (that Congress will continue to deadlock, effectively granting victory-by-default to conservative causes). And they probably won't be wrong in that prediction, if the last decade serves as evidence.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> I'm contextualizing this opinion through a legal lens, pointing to what it really does. From now on, Congress will have to pass laws (e.g. Do Their Jobs) to pass environmental legislation No, it doesn't mean that. The Major Question doctrine only even comes into play on its own terms if (1) Congress has, in fact, passed a law, and (2) the matter addressed by the law is entirely withing Congress Constitutional power, and (3) an executive agency is acting entirely in accord with the law passed by Congress.