3 ms·
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 op
by 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 agoWhat’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 agoWhat about my point required referring to the opinion?