3 ms·
I wonder whether this changes anything in practical terms. Can the EPA start enforcing the CO2 regulations again and take it back to the Supreme Court with this
by josh-sematic 2y ago
I wonder whether this changes anything in practical terms. Can the EPA start enforcing the CO2 regulations again and take it back to the Supreme Court with this as part of the defense? Or is there another pathway to get a new judgement from the courts by taking this evidence into consideration?
- jandrese 2y agoWith Chevron deference dead they won't be able to enforce anything about CO2 without it getting tied up in the courts and probably killed in one of the circuit courts.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- spencerflem 2y agoYoud need a new court first lol I don't think the current one is very open to suggestion
- hughesjj 2y agoEnd of the day we can always ignore the Supreme Court rulings. Thermonuclear option. Marburey vs Madison was the courts interpreting the constitution to say that judicial review exists. Judicial review itself is a precedent that we've all been following in good faith. I'd honestly love a historic review of judicial review and see if we think it's been a net positive or negative. For every civilian rights win there's also a dredd Scott, not sure how it's balanced on the whole. I've always thought it was a good thing and I like it in theory but... Now that I'm older I'm thinking about it's application in practice more critically
- hash872 2y agoI have a pretty low opinion of judicial review, but I'm not clear that reviewing actions by administrative agencies actually qualifies as JR. Review is when the courts strike down actual laws passed by Congress. In this case it's an administrative action by an agency
- ImJamal 2y agoSince Marbury vs Madison was so early on it would be hard to really figure out if it has been a net positive. We can make some assumptions about what would have happened, but I don't think it would really be practical to come to any conclusion.
- Vecr 2y agoYeah but then why do you have to listen to any courts at all? EPA brings a lawsuit, you just ignore it. As far as I know without the courts they could just be arrested by local police for trespassing if they actually try to enforce anything.
- burkaman 2y agoYeah, wait for someone to die and put someone else on the court. The Supreme Court has completely changed its mind on basically every important issue in the country's history, and it does so when the justices change, not when the evidence changes. They are not divine arbiters of truth, they're just people with opinions. Here's a full list if you're curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_State... One fun example: in 1940 they rule 8-1 that schools can compel students to salute the flag and recite the pledge of allegiance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v._Gobitis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v....). Then 3 years later they say oops nevermind, actually you can't do that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_E...). Some justices were in the majority on both cases. Did the Constitution change in those 3 years? No, the people changed.
- spencerflem 2y agoAlternatives to waiting include expanding the number of justices and impeachment, both of which are available to Congress