3 ms·

I’ve noticed this trend lately as well, I’ve even commented about it on here a few times, and I attribute it to an increased push from opponents to climate refo

I’ve noticed this trend lately as well, I’ve even commented about it on here a few times, and I attribute it to an increased push from opponents to climate reform because real climate legislation has actually started to be passed and enforced. Just look at how the Supreme Court has started to neuter the EPA as soon as they actually started to clamp down on emissions.

nradov 4y ago
That's a total non sequitur. Have you read the Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? It wasn't based on opposition to climate change legislation. The actual issue was a lack of legislation. The EPA clearly exceeded their statutory authority. We need Congress to pass real climate change legislation and stop the administrative state from sneaking things in through the back door. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
- freejazz 4y ago
  That's one very obtuse way to read into the opinion. And just linking it there, like it's self-evident. Like people don't debate the meaning of supreme court opinions.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    What’s obtuse is thinking that Congress hid the power to restructure the energy mix of the country in a provision giving the EPA power to require particular kinds of pollution control equipment. To be sure, there’s a lot of legitimate debate over the meaning of Supreme Court decisions. But a chunk of it is simply not undertaken in good faith. It is made to seem like a debate because one side simply doesn’t like the implications of things that are obviously true, such as “Congress hasn’t yet passed major laws addressing climate change” or “the Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion.” And I’m not speaking out of partisanship here. The US is simply extreme among developed nations at how creatively our Supreme Court reads our Constitution and laws. The Europeans don’t just read sweeping new provisions into decades-old laws. The EHCR, for example, has repeatedly declined to find a right to same-sex marriage or abortion in the EU Convention of human rights (because those rights plainly are not in there). The US is more like second-tier democracies such as India or Bangladesh, where high court judges will just dl whatever they want with only tenuous support in the constitution or laws.
  - amadeuspagel 4y ago
    > And just linking it there, like it's self-evident. As opposed to not linking it, not even refering to the case, as if that's self-evident?
    - freejazz 4y ago
      What about my point required referring to the opinion?

nradov 4y ago

That's a total non sequitur. Have you read the Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)? It wasn't based on opposition to climate change legislation. The actual issue was a lack of legislation. The EPA clearly exceeded their statutory authority. We need Congress to pass real climate change legislation and stop the administrative state from sneaking things in through the back door. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

freejazz 4y ago
That's one very obtuse way to read into the opinion. And just linking it there, like it's self-evident. Like people don't debate the meaning of supreme court opinions.
- rayiner 4y ago
  What’s obtuse is thinking that Congress hid the power to restructure the energy mix of the country in a provision giving the EPA power to require particular kinds of pollution control equipment. To be sure, there’s a lot of legitimate debate over the meaning of Supreme Court decisions. But a chunk of it is simply not undertaken in good faith. It is made to seem like a debate because one side simply doesn’t like the implications of things that are obviously true, such as “Congress hasn’t yet passed major laws addressing climate change” or “the Constitution doesn’t say anything about abortion.” And I’m not speaking out of partisanship here. The US is simply extreme among developed nations at how creatively our Supreme Court reads our Constitution and laws. The Europeans don’t just read sweeping new provisions into decades-old laws. The EHCR, for example, has repeatedly declined to find a right to same-sex marriage or abortion in the EU Convention of human rights (because those rights plainly are not in there). The US is more like second-tier democracies such as India or Bangladesh, where high court judges will just dl whatever they want with only tenuous support in the constitution or laws.
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  > And just linking it there, like it's self-evident. As opposed to not linking it, not even refering to the case, as if that's self-evident?
  - freejazz 4y ago
    What about my point required referring to the opinion?