3 ms·

I think your interpretation is wrong. The EPA was given the power to regulate emissions but the court is going in the direction that Congress must be much more

I think your interpretation is wrong. The EPA was given the power to regulate emissions but the court is going in the direction that Congress must be much more explicit and state exactly which emissions can be regulated. They are requiring a level of specificity that is impractical. But the NSA can warrant less wiretap on a grand scale without a similar level of specificity. Of course qualified immunity applies to more than law enforcement. But where its application is especially dangerous and contrary to good governance is in its current application in law enforcement. Police can effectively with impunity violate your civil rights on purpose. This is a stupid state of affairs and it matters not what the legal justification is because the unintended (perhaps intended) consequence is that the state can deprive you of your civil rights. BTW, your last paragraph is contradicted by the preceding paragraph. Maybe you meant to say, “the courts are supposed to interpret laws and not make them up”

Clubber 4y ago
>But where its application is especially dangerous and contrary to good governance is in its current application in law enforcement. Police can effectively with impunity violate your civil rights on purpose. Forgot to comment on this. Yes, this is very dangerous and probably the biggest threat to our current stability. It's really getting out of hand and if there is no legal remedy, I'm afraid people will find their own, and it won't be good for anyone. It's already starting to happen. Imagine if they really wanted to cause harm in a well organized manner. https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/us/atlanta-cop-city-protests/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/us/atlanta-cop-city-protests/...
Clubber 4y ago
I think this is the case you are referring to: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-supreme-court-curbed-epas-power-to-regulate-carbon-emissions-from-power-plants-what-comes-next/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-supreme-court... July 19, 2022 – In late June, the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot put state-level caps on carbon emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Such authority would, in effect, steer states away from coal and toward other types of power sources that emit less carbon. The Court said that, instead, the authority to decide how power is created in the U.S. must come from Congress. I personally find that reasonable. >But the NSA can warrant less wiretap on a grand scale without a similar level of specificity. They refused to hear it (didn't rule one way or the other and the lower courts are split) citing the state secrets privilege. I would have liked them to take the case too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikipedia-bid-challenge-nsa-surveillance-2023-02-21/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikiped... >Maybe you meant to say, “the courts are supposed to interpret laws and not make them up” Yes.

Clubber 4y ago

>But where its application is especially dangerous and contrary to good governance is in its current application in law enforcement. Police can effectively with impunity violate your civil rights on purpose. Forgot to comment on this. Yes, this is very dangerous and probably the biggest threat to our current stability. It's really getting out of hand and if there is no legal remedy, I'm afraid people will find their own, and it won't be good for anyone. It's already starting to happen. Imagine if they really wanted to cause harm in a well organized manner. https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/us/atlanta-cop-city-protests/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/06/us/atlanta-cop-city-protests/...

Clubber 4y ago

I think this is the case you are referring to: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-supreme-court-curbed-epas-power-to-regulate-carbon-emissions-from-power-plants-what-comes-next/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-supreme-court... July 19, 2022 – In late June, the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot put state-level caps on carbon emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act. Such authority would, in effect, steer states away from coal and toward other types of power sources that emit less carbon. The Court said that, instead, the authority to decide how power is created in the U.S. must come from Congress. I personally find that reasonable. >But the NSA can warrant less wiretap on a grand scale without a similar level of specificity. They refused to hear it (didn't rule one way or the other and the lower courts are split) citing the state secrets privilege. I would have liked them to take the case too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikipedia-bid-challenge-nsa-surveillance-2023-02-21/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-snubs-wikiped... >Maybe you meant to say, “the courts are supposed to interpret laws and not make them up” Yes.