5 ms·

There is no level of writing in a statute that can survive an activist judge that wants to eliminate that statute. The clearest example of this is the clean ai

There is no level of writing in a statute that can survive an activist judge that wants to eliminate that statute. The clearest example of this is the clean air act. The EPA has the authority very clearly spelled out in statute to determine what is and isn't a pollutant and how to restrict it. So why then couldn't they define CO2 as a pollutant and regulate emissions? Because activist judges did not like that. The supreme court reversed those powers granted by congress. We have multiple recent examples of the supreme court ignoring what the law says because it's inconvenient to their political agendas (For example, the gutting of the voting rights act).

daft_pink 2y ago
But at the end of the day, Congress could still step in and say that CO2 is a pollutant and authorize it. The fact that they haven’t says something about where the American public stands on such an idea.
- cogman10 2y ago
  Congress could have stepped in and disbanded the EPA, but they haven't which is a fact that says something about where the American public stands on such an idea. Does congress now need to step in every year to re-approve every law and agency created? But further, an elephant in the room is the senate which runs completely counter to the american public. It grants extreme representation to the minority of the american public and further enhances that power with the filibuster which allows senators from the least populated states to stop laws passed by the house which more closely represents the general public.
rayiner 2y ago
Your example is exactly backwards! In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ignored Chevron deference, and told the EPA that CO2 could be a pollutant under the statute. The EPA didn’t want to regulate CO2.
- cogman10 2y ago
  Yes, and later on when the EPA made CO2 a pollutant (WEST VIRGINIA v the EPA) the supreme court ruled "Actuaally... JK, ignore that last ruling because you can't do this". [1] As in, they literally ignored their ruling made just a few years prior because when the EPA called their bluff it would result in an outcome they didn't like. Heads you lose, tails we win. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Your example is again backwards. West Virginia v. EPA said nothing about whether the EPA could regulate CO2. The Court took it for granted that the EPA could do that. The case was about the interpretation of 42 USC 7411, which creates an express distinction in how new pollution sources and existing pollution sources are treated. The Clean Air Act created a fundamental compromise: the EPA could require reasonable emissions control technologies on existing plants, and could require more aggressive pollution control on new plants. In this case, the EPA decided that the power to require emissions control technologies on existing power plants gave it the power to require the entire industry to shut down fossil fuel plants in favor of renewables. That was an obviously stupid interpretation of the statutory language that nobody exercising good faith could seriously credit, and which gutted the statutory compromise in the Clean Air Act. Imagine Congress passes a social media law, which allows the FCC to require social media companies to implement “reasonable privacy protection technology.” The FCC decides that social media inherently risks privacy, and bans your company from collecting any user data at all. You sue, and the FCC says that banning social media companies is a kind of “reasonable privacy protection technology.” That’s basically what happened in West Virginia v. EPA.
    - jhp123 2y ago
      Your constructed example would fail even under pre-MQD Chevron because banning companies is not a reasonable interpretation of a "technology". Maybe you find the case obvious (unlike the SCOTUS judges, who were split) because you are missing some its basic contours?

daft_pink 2y ago

But at the end of the day, Congress could still step in and say that CO2 is a pollutant and authorize it. The fact that they haven’t says something about where the American public stands on such an idea.

cogman10 2y ago
Congress could have stepped in and disbanded the EPA, but they haven't which is a fact that says something about where the American public stands on such an idea. Does congress now need to step in every year to re-approve every law and agency created? But further, an elephant in the room is the senate which runs completely counter to the american public. It grants extreme representation to the minority of the american public and further enhances that power with the filibuster which allows senators from the least populated states to stop laws passed by the house which more closely represents the general public.

rayiner 2y ago

Your example is exactly backwards! In Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ignored Chevron deference, and told the EPA that CO2 could be a pollutant under the statute. The EPA didn’t want to regulate CO2.

cogman10 2y ago
Yes, and later on when the EPA made CO2 a pollutant (WEST VIRGINIA v the EPA) the supreme court ruled "Actuaally... JK, ignore that last ruling because you can't do this". [1] As in, they literally ignored their ruling made just a few years prior because when the EPA called their bluff it would result in an outcome they didn't like. Heads you lose, tails we win. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 2y ago
  Your example is again backwards. West Virginia v. EPA said nothing about whether the EPA could regulate CO2. The Court took it for granted that the EPA could do that. The case was about the interpretation of 42 USC 7411, which creates an express distinction in how new pollution sources and existing pollution sources are treated. The Clean Air Act created a fundamental compromise: the EPA could require reasonable emissions control technologies on existing plants, and could require more aggressive pollution control on new plants. In this case, the EPA decided that the power to require emissions control technologies on existing power plants gave it the power to require the entire industry to shut down fossil fuel plants in favor of renewables. That was an obviously stupid interpretation of the statutory language that nobody exercising good faith could seriously credit, and which gutted the statutory compromise in the Clean Air Act. Imagine Congress passes a social media law, which allows the FCC to require social media companies to implement “reasonable privacy protection technology.” The FCC decides that social media inherently risks privacy, and bans your company from collecting any user data at all. You sue, and the FCC says that banning social media companies is a kind of “reasonable privacy protection technology.” That’s basically what happened in West Virginia v. EPA.
  - jhp123 2y ago
    Your constructed example would fail even under pre-MQD Chevron because banning companies is not a reasonable interpretation of a "technology". Maybe you find the case obvious (unlike the SCOTUS judges, who were split) because you are missing some its basic contours?