6 ms·
They did pass it as law, called the 1970 clean air act.
by jvanderbot 2y ago
They did pass it as law, called the 1970 clean air act.
- seizethecheese 2y agoThis is clearly under dispute and not a fact that can be stated so cleanly . The article itself makes it clear that the Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that this is not the case.h
- mbStavola 2y agoSeemed to be the case for 50+ years.
- spencerflem 2y ago[flagged]
- RangerScience 2y agoCheck out the book “Legal Systems Very Different From Our Own” for the millennia-old tradition that is “finding a way to interpret a holy text according to your politics”
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- burkaman 2y agoIt is understandably confusing, because the Supreme Court also ruled that it is the case in 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA. > greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA's capacious definition of air pollutant - United States Supreme Court
- throw10920 2y agoWikipedia is not a citation.
- consteval 2y agoThis current supreme court is addicted to rolling back anything and everything that is opposed to a conservative position. The clean air act was already ruled to include greenhouse gasses. It's not under dispute, this court just disputes it because they have the power and ultimately are playing an end game of fostering a conservative government, i.e. they have long term political interests.
- andrewla 2y agoI mean, the 1970 act did spell out certain places where the EPA has authority in regulating greenhouse gases, including specifically CO2. But they did not authorize the way that the EPA was setting standards for gas-fired power plants. The technicalities here run deep, but the fact that some academics at Yale think that it should be allowed tells us nothing -- already, three of the most brilliant legal minds in the country have already publicly dissented from the Supreme Court's opinion on the subject. In the face of the ambiguity, the bias should be for the legislature to act to correct the ambiguity. There is no constitutional issue at stake, just a question of what the act authorized. Congress can just deal with this. EDIT: This is incorrect; as pointed out below, the 1970 Act did not mention greenhouse gases or CO2 specifically. As of the 2022 amendment to the act there are several explict areas where greenhouse gases are specifically mentioned.
- earthboundkid 2y agoIf there's ambiguity, the Supreme Court should defer to the executive and let Congress pass a new law if they disagree. It doesn't make sense for the tie to go to inaction. We elect Presidents exactly so they can steer the executive in the direction we like! Requiring all three branches to agree (Congress passes the law, Executive actually does it, Court says it's okay) is a recipe for national paralysis.
- nradov 2y agoThat is just completely wrong and you have misunderstood why we elect Presidents. Your opinion isn't supported by anything in the Constitution.
- earthboundkid 2y agoThe Constitution does not mention judicial review at all. Since it's ambiguous, it must be unconstitutional; therefore the Supreme Court must stop doing it. This is the same logic.
- mikestew 2y agoHow does the concept of “checks and balances” fit into your view? I ask because, as sibling commenter points out, that’s just not how the Constitution says it works.