4 ms·

I 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 auth

I 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 ago
If 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 ago
  That is just completely wrong and you have misunderstood why we elect Presidents. Your opinion isn't supported by anything in the Constitution.
  - earthboundkid 2y ago
    The 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 ago
  How 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.
  - enragedcacti 2y ago
    You could get a very reasonable answer to your question by reading Chevron or the dissents of Loper.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  No. That's not how it's supposed to work. Without delegation (which has happened), the presidency (and Executive branch broadly) is constrained by the Constitution, the laws set by Congress, international treaties (consequence of the Constitution), and restricted by the interpretation and judgement of the courts. If there's ambiguity the Executive can make their own call, they don't have to sit and wait, but they can then be challenged in the courts and have to stop acting in a manner judged inconsistent with the law, constitution, and treaties.
  - plorg 2y ago
    If it's truly a matter of ambiguity then the court is not adjudicating an inconsistency, it is inserting is own judgement about what the other party (Congress) said - when the other party has the ability to assert its intentions directly.
    - Khaine 2y ago
      Yes, Congress can solve this buy doing their job and passing a law to clarify the fact. The fact they don't demonstrates the dysfunction in the US, and the craziness that everyone thinks they can get the executive branch to do an end run around the constitution.
rufus_foreman 2y ago
>> I mean, the 1970 act did spell out certain places where the EPA has authority in regulating greenhouse gases, including specifically CO2. The text of the 1970 Clean Air Act is at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/91/hr17255/text https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/91/hr17255/text, in which places does the text specifically call out the authority of the EPA to regulate CO2? I do not see the words "CO2" or "carbon dioxide" in the text. I see references to "carbon monoxide" and "hydrocarbons" neither of which refer to CO2.
- burkaman 2y ago
  Read section 108, which explicitly says the EPA administrator has the authority to decide what is considered a pollutant. The Supreme Court held that CO2 should be considered a pollutant under this authority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA. You may also be interested in the 2022 amendments to the Clean Air Act passed by Congress, which explicitly enumerate greenhouse gases as substances to be regulated by the EPA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_%28United_States%29#2022_amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_%28United_States....
  - rufus_foreman 2y ago
    >> Read section 108 That does not contain wording "including specifically CO2", which was the assertion I responded to. >> You may also be interested in the 2022 amendments No, I was interested in the original assertion that the 1970 Clean Air Act "spell[ed] out certain places where the EPA has authority in regulating greenhouse gases, including specifically CO2".
    - consteval 2y ago
      Laws are not based off the specific wording, they're based off the spirit. At least in the US. The clean air act says the EPA can determine what is/is not a pollutant based off whether it can harm the public. That, to me, means the law covers CO2. I don't understand how you can interpret it otherwise.

earthboundkid 2y ago

If 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 ago
That is just completely wrong and you have misunderstood why we elect Presidents. Your opinion isn't supported by anything in the Constitution.
- earthboundkid 2y ago
  The 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 ago
How 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.
- enragedcacti 2y ago
  You could get a very reasonable answer to your question by reading Chevron or the dissents of Loper.
Jtsummers 2y ago
No. That's not how it's supposed to work. Without delegation (which has happened), the presidency (and Executive branch broadly) is constrained by the Constitution, the laws set by Congress, international treaties (consequence of the Constitution), and restricted by the interpretation and judgement of the courts. If there's ambiguity the Executive can make their own call, they don't have to sit and wait, but they can then be challenged in the courts and have to stop acting in a manner judged inconsistent with the law, constitution, and treaties.
- plorg 2y ago
  If it's truly a matter of ambiguity then the court is not adjudicating an inconsistency, it is inserting is own judgement about what the other party (Congress) said - when the other party has the ability to assert its intentions directly.
  - Khaine 2y ago
    Yes, Congress can solve this buy doing their job and passing a law to clarify the fact. The fact they don't demonstrates the dysfunction in the US, and the craziness that everyone thinks they can get the executive branch to do an end run around the constitution.

rufus_foreman 2y ago

>> I mean, the 1970 act did spell out certain places where the EPA has authority in regulating greenhouse gases, including specifically CO2. The text of the 1970 Clean Air Act is at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/91/hr17255/text https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/91/hr17255/text, in which places does the text specifically call out the authority of the EPA to regulate CO2? I do not see the words "CO2" or "carbon dioxide" in the text. I see references to "carbon monoxide" and "hydrocarbons" neither of which refer to CO2.

burkaman 2y ago
Read section 108, which explicitly says the EPA administrator has the authority to decide what is considered a pollutant. The Supreme Court held that CO2 should be considered a pollutant under this authority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA. You may also be interested in the 2022 amendments to the Clean Air Act passed by Congress, which explicitly enumerate greenhouse gases as substances to be regulated by the EPA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_%28United_States%29#2022_amendments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_%28United_States....
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  >> Read section 108 That does not contain wording "including specifically CO2", which was the assertion I responded to. >> You may also be interested in the 2022 amendments No, I was interested in the original assertion that the 1970 Clean Air Act "spell[ed] out certain places where the EPA has authority in regulating greenhouse gases, including specifically CO2".
  - consteval 2y ago
    Laws are not based off the specific wording, they're based off the spirit. At least in the US. The clean air act says the EPA can determine what is/is not a pollutant based off whether it can harm the public. That, to me, means the law covers CO2. I don't understand how you can interpret it otherwise.