10 ms·

Sadly, the US Supreme Court does not agree that clean air and water are essential and they are very busy dismantling the regulatory state. We have probably reac

Sadly, the US Supreme Court does not agree that clean air and water are essential and they are very busy dismantling the regulatory state. We have probably reached peak clean air and water. Things will get much dirtier — and dangerous— over the coming decades.

nxm 3y ago
Supreme Court simply ruled that EPA exceeded its authority given by lawmakers. Congress should give EPA more authority if its intends for the EPA to do more. The issue we have is government agencies overreaching beyond their remit.
- sundaeofshock 3y ago
  What about this ruling from 2022? This Supreme Court is hostile to regulations and precedent. 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...
  - rascul 3y ago
    The first paragraph of that link basically says that the Supreme Court found the EPA exceeded its authority given by lawmakers and that Congress should give EPA more authority if its intends for the EPA to do more. The rest is opinions about that finding.
  - deelowe 3y ago
    No. The SC is hostile to regulatory agency overreach as a means of congress not doing it's job. The SC is holding congress accountable. Regulatory agencies should not be able change the law through gradual expansion of scope. In this specific case, state level caps on carbon emissions are well beyond the original scope of the clean air act.
    - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
      The only people who can really hold congress accountable are the voters. Right now it appears that the voters care more about who is “woke” and who isn’t, than about anything else.
      - aperson_hello 3y ago
        That's entirely false. Case in point: the veto power. There are checks and balances built into the system. One of them is the supreme court's ability to rule on constitutionality. And it's pretty clear that congress has pretty well abdicated its responsibilities...
  - EMCymatics 3y ago
    It is a symptom of congress not doing its job.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  > Supreme Court simply ruled that EPA exceeded its authority given by lawmakers. The supreme court could have abolished the EPA and this statement would still be true. They simply ruled it, no politics happening here! It is completely meaningless to discuss the supreme court without discussing the actual circumstances of the cases and the precedents set by their rulings. Disagree? Just ask Kavanaugh w.r.t. their clean water act ruling, which of course just simply ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority: > The majority had “rewritten the Clean Water Act” and ignored its text as well as “45 years of consistent agency practice,” Kavanaugh wrote. > The statutory text, Kavanaugh wrote, “does not require a continuous surface connection between those wetlands and covered waters.” > By narrowing the (Clean Water) Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands,” Kavanaugh wrote, “the court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.” https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/politics/supreme-court-wetlands-authority-epa/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/politics/supreme-court-wetlan...
  - paddw 3y ago
    Ruling was 8-1, so if politics are happening, they seem mostly bipartisan in this specific EPA case.
    - enragedcacti 3y ago
      It was actually 9-0 in this particular case. All justices agreed that the Sacketts' wetland was not subject to the CWA. What is under contention (and was a 5-4 decision) is under what grounds and what test should be applied going forward: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-curtails-clean-water-act/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-curtails-cl...
- jagraff 3y ago
  But congress won’t, because they can’t. So our air and water will become dirtier. Seems like a pretty big issue to me.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  This supreme court likely holds the opinion that Congress CANNOT delegate it's authority. IMO that's insane, but there are plenty of people who explicitly want that outcome, including the small subset of already rich and powerful people who actually benefit from a government that has to play dumb political games for every little detail of regulation instead of letting a standalone agency do it with express permission.
  - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
    Ah yeas the big ebil corparashuns who steal the wealth of poor people who don't have any wealth...
jjtheblunt 3y ago
where can i read more about this?

nxm 3y ago

Supreme Court simply ruled that EPA exceeded its authority given by lawmakers. Congress should give EPA more authority if its intends for the EPA to do more. The issue we have is government agencies overreaching beyond their remit.

sundaeofshock 3y ago
What about this ruling from 2022? This Supreme Court is hostile to regulations and precedent. 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...
- rascul 3y ago
  The first paragraph of that link basically says that the Supreme Court found the EPA exceeded its authority given by lawmakers and that Congress should give EPA more authority if its intends for the EPA to do more. The rest is opinions about that finding.
- deelowe 3y ago
  No. The SC is hostile to regulatory agency overreach as a means of congress not doing it's job. The SC is holding congress accountable. Regulatory agencies should not be able change the law through gradual expansion of scope. In this specific case, state level caps on carbon emissions are well beyond the original scope of the clean air act.
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    The only people who can really hold congress accountable are the voters. Right now it appears that the voters care more about who is “woke” and who isn’t, than about anything else.
    - aperson_hello 3y ago
      That's entirely false. Case in point: the veto power. There are checks and balances built into the system. One of them is the supreme court's ability to rule on constitutionality. And it's pretty clear that congress has pretty well abdicated its responsibilities...
- EMCymatics 3y ago
  It is a symptom of congress not doing its job.
enragedcacti 3y ago
> Supreme Court simply ruled that EPA exceeded its authority given by lawmakers. The supreme court could have abolished the EPA and this statement would still be true. They simply ruled it, no politics happening here! It is completely meaningless to discuss the supreme court without discussing the actual circumstances of the cases and the precedents set by their rulings. Disagree? Just ask Kavanaugh w.r.t. their clean water act ruling, which of course just simply ruled that the EPA exceeded its authority: > The majority had “rewritten the Clean Water Act” and ignored its text as well as “45 years of consistent agency practice,” Kavanaugh wrote. > The statutory text, Kavanaugh wrote, “does not require a continuous surface connection between those wetlands and covered waters.” > By narrowing the (Clean Water) Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands,” Kavanaugh wrote, “the court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.” https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/politics/supreme-court-wetlands-authority-epa/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/politics/supreme-court-wetlan...
- paddw 3y ago
  Ruling was 8-1, so if politics are happening, they seem mostly bipartisan in this specific EPA case.
  - enragedcacti 3y ago
    It was actually 9-0 in this particular case. All justices agreed that the Sacketts' wetland was not subject to the CWA. What is under contention (and was a 5-4 decision) is under what grounds and what test should be applied going forward: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-curtails-clean-water-act/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-curtails-cl...
jagraff 3y ago
But congress won’t, because they can’t. So our air and water will become dirtier. Seems like a pretty big issue to me.
mrguyorama 3y ago
This supreme court likely holds the opinion that Congress CANNOT delegate it's authority. IMO that's insane, but there are plenty of people who explicitly want that outcome, including the small subset of already rich and powerful people who actually benefit from a government that has to play dumb political games for every little detail of regulation instead of letting a standalone agency do it with express permission.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  Ah yeas the big ebil corparashuns who steal the wealth of poor people who don't have any wealth...

jjtheblunt 3y ago

where can i read more about this?