4 ms·
Watersheds aren't a local resource - they're a regional resource. This decision made no sense to begin with since, for instance, Vermont acting like a bad neig
by munk-a 3y ago
Watersheds aren't a local resource - they're a regional resource. This decision made no sense to begin with since, for instance, Vermont acting like a bad neighbor will cause environmental devastation in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York - water sheds very rarely stay neatly within state boundaries. This becomes an even bigger issue when you look at the Mississippi - mining in North Dakota can cause issues in Louisiana.
I do hope that states can work together to protect the environment but it does seem likely to become a partisan issue.
- ars 3y ago> This decision made no sense to begin with since Again, if Congress wanted to fix this, they have the authority. The decision simply said they have not yet actually done so.
- thomasahle 3y agoI'm trying to understand if the people saying "congress can just fix this" every time the supreme court makes a ruling, a) Don't agree that congress is blocked and is never going to pass anything. b) Care more about the legalities than the issues themselves, and so don't really care about whether there is a plausible way through congress. c) Are making a cry for help for everyone to come together to fix congress. Hoping that if things get bad enough, people will finally wake up and get congress working again. d) Trust that the supreme court will vote in their favour, and are just concern trolling / trying to distract their political opponents by referring to congress. Let me know if I missed any other options.
- junofan 3y agob). The US government is really big and powerful, so it’s more important to me the system is working as it should than any single issue be resolved.
- zdragnar 3y agoThe "so..." clause in (B) is irrelevant. Any solution that doesn't pass conditional muster is temporary, at best. Relying on unconstitutional measures to enact the change you want invites unfortunately measures to enact changes you don't like. The only way to address the issue is to do so legally.
- thomasahle 3y agoMaybe it should be an "and" instead of "so". At least it sounds like you do believe it is possible to change things legally, as it couldn't be the only way, if it's not a way. So maybe you're on (a)?
- detroitcoder 3y agoIt is often: e.) Want to limit the federal executive branch of government which some believe has grown too powerful.
- thomasahle 3y agoI was thinking of this as a variant of (d), where you're betting the supreme court will mostly take powers away from the government.
- rootusrootus 3y agoMy vote is c. Though hopefully things don't get so bad that we just exclude the SCOTUS from the process. IMO that's a possibility if we continue to rely on them to be the effective source of law.
- ars 3y agoNone of the above. e) stop complaining about the Supreme Court rulings going against their desire, and complain to Congress instead. You have a subtext in all your options that gates all your options on what (a person thinks) should happen. For example "whether there is a plausible way through congress". None of your options simply leave that concept entirely out. The reality of a law simply does not care on what you feel the law should be. I see it all the time people complain "if you rule this way then xyz will happen", which is so completely irrelevant I don't see why they even mention it. A ruling is based on what IS passed not what output you want. Legislature on the other hand is all about what SHOULD be the result.
- thomasahle 3y agoSounds like (b) to me.
- swsieber 3y ago> c) Are making a cry for help for everyone to come together to fix congress. Hoping that if things get bad enough, people will finally wake up and get congress working again. If we try to rely on the Supreme Court to fix things without fixing congress, the Supreme Court is going to become way more dysfunctional too.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> trying to understand if the people saying "congress can just fix this" every time the supreme court makes a ruling Because it's what the current Court is saying. They're pushing back against Chevron's deference to agency rule making. Congress didn't say a thing, agencies wrote a rule, the courts deferred; SCOTUS is saying that last part was incorrect, the agencies never had the power to write that rule. Congress needed to do it.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoI think c is legitimate. Our federal institutions are breaking down due to the public’s mistrust of congress. Its a completely broken institution and both parties are relying on that fact to move toward a more culture war based platform instead of talking about policy, since everyone knows there will be no policy.
- ralusek 3y agoI gladly choose option b. The rule of law is a meta-principle, and is much more important than any individual issue. Allowing arbitrary execution of authority in favor of an issue you care about is a recipe for authoritarianism.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 3y agoThey also have had the authority to fix the supposed misinterpretation of their intent for decades, and have not. Meanwhile, Congress watches the Court strike down significant parts of things like the Voting Rights Act. There’s little reason to believe the Court couldn’t possibly have struck down a “fix” on some other premise.
- rootusrootus 3y agoCongress basically has all the power. They could just tell SCOTUS to piss off. Maybe that's why so many people are happy to see the gridlock and dysfunction. Heaven help us if too many congresspeople really agree on something.
- ceejayoz 3y ago> Congress basically has all the power. They could just tell SCOTUS to piss off. No? If SCOTUS says a law is unconstitutional, you’re either in amendment territory, or the complete collapse of the American system if Congress and the Executive ignore them.
- rootusrootus 3y agoWho gave SCOTUS the power of judicial review? SCOTUS did. Not the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution grants Congress wide ranging power over the court. The idea that the three branches are co-equal is a popular myth. Congress definitely has more power than either the executive or the judicial branch. Which of course is exactly what you'd expect given that the power of the people is manifested primarily through the legislature. If Congress wants, they can write legislation and then simultaneously exclude it from judicial review.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe Constitution is meaningless in that scenario. The Founding Fathers weren’t that dumb.
- feoren 3y agoAre we ignoring the fact that congress didn't need to fix this for the last 45 years, because the judiciary had set clear precedent on how it interpreted the law? Why would congress spend its time on bolstering the defenses of well-established laws against every potential random flip-flopping of the judiciary at any point in the future? That sounds like a tremendous waste of time, and an exercise in trying to mind-read future judges. What's really happening here is that a wall that took years/decades to build, that everyone thought was solid, was just torn down, and everyone is saying "the masons should have just built a better wall if they cared so much. They can do so now if they choose." while the territory that the wall was protecting is being invaded. See the problem?
- ars 3y agoNo they are saying the masons put the wall in a different place than where they planned. And then labeled the wall with the mistaken location, so everyone believed the label. Until someone checked and realized the wall was not where it claimed to be.
- beerandt 3y agoIt's not as simple as that. If the wetlands described don't fall under constitutional "Navigable Waterways" (via CWAs language "Waters of the US"), then congress does NOT have the constitutional authority to regulate it.
- lostlogin 3y ago> Watersheds aren't a local resource - they're a regional resource. I’d go even further than that. Lots of migratory birds and animals use them. It’s pretty amazing being around when the mega flocks of birds land.
- detourdog 3y agoI live in a area of Massachusetts and one side of the hill sheds to the Long Island sound and the other side sheds water to the Hudson.
- detourdog 3y agoI forgot to mention about 5 years ago just before we sold the family farm in Central Pennsylvania. We received a notice that we had to start creating a management plan for the manure. We were in the Chesapeake watershed. The farm was sold and a hospital built on top of it all...