The Supreme Court strikes again; EPA has been restricted

[ivwshane]

Apparently when Congress created the EPA to fix National guidelines and enforce them with regards to environmental regulations like the clean air act, they had to be more specific in what their power was according to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court restricts the EPA's authority to mandate carbon emissions reductions

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to mandate carbon emissions from existing power plants.

www.npr.org

If you aren’t in favor of expanding the courts to override these extremist judges then you are part of the problem.

 

[brycejones]

Calvin ball.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

The same conservatives who love to shit on China's air quality now want us to produce our power in the same way and end up with all our cities having the kind of toxic air Beijing is known for.

 

[fskimospy]

Funny how the people who say statutes should be interpreted by their plain text meaning decided all of a sudden that they plain text meaning here didn’t count. Pure Calvinball.

 

[dainthomas]

Fantastic, now we go back to the capitalist paradise of the 60s/70s with choking smog and burning rivers.

This lot is as big a joke as the Taney court, there's literally nothing they can't get wrong. They'd rule puppies unconstitutional if they had the chance.

 

[HomerJS]

Meh!. Who needs clean air?

 

[soundforbjt]

The same conservatives who love to shit on China's air quality now want us to produce our power in the same way and end up with all our cities having the kind of toxic air Beijing is known for.

But think of the money it save the poor corporations.

 

[K1052]

Conservatives on the court just has one of those magic 8 balls under their desks that says things like "major questions" or "historical and traditional" or "just make something up".

 

[fskimospy]

People really need to understand how insane and aggressive this ruling is. The statute plainly authorizes this action and it’s consistent with the intent of Congress at the time to regulate air pollutants. Despite this, the court simply decided this was a ‘major question’ and so the plain text no longer matters and it now needs to be explicitly authorized by Congress.

What’s the statutory or constitutional basis for this? Nothing. What defines a major question? Whatever a court says it is.

From this point forward any court that wants to invalidate any federal regulation it doesn’t like just has to declare it a ‘major question’ and then they are free to do whatever they want.

 

[ivwshane]

In 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had this authority, guess who dissented?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA

 

[hal2kilo]

Fantastic, now we go back to the capitalist paradise of the 60s/70s with choking smog and burning rivers.

This lot is as big a joke as the Taney court, there's literally nothing they can't get wrong. They'd rule puppies unconstitutional if they had the chance.

Never knew there were supposed to be blue skies in the summer where I grew up in suburban DC. Thanks Ohio coal fired power plants.

 

[fskimospy]

In 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had this authority, guess who dissented?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._EPA

My favorite part of the dissent by Roberts:

The Chief Justice concludes by accusing the majority of lending the Court as a convenient forum for policy debate and of transgressing the limited role afforded to the Supreme Court by the U.S. Constitution.

lol.

 

[dainthomas]

My favorite part of the dissent by Roberts:



lol.

Roberts acting like a hyper-partisan hypocritical ideologue? Must be a day that ends in Y.

 

[gothuevos]

My favorite part of the dissent by Roberts:



lol.

Limited role.

Now more like sole arbiter of all.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Have fun with those hurricanes conservatives.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Have fun with those hurricanes conservatives.

More like, 'Have fun with global collapse and hundreds of millions/billions of migrants, everyone.'

 

[Roger Wilco]

More like, 'Have fun with global collapse and hundreds of millions/billions of migrants, everyone.'

gg world

 

[kt]

These conservative SC judges are on a roll. It's like they want to one up one another like it's a sport. Let's bring unwanted babies into this world so we can see them suffer through life. Hold my beer, let's make this world even worse for them and add more pollutants to their environment.

 

[Jaskalas]

What’s the statutory or constitutional basis for this? Nothing. What defines a major question? Whatever a court says it is.

Altering all energy production / consumption /prices throughout the nation seems like a rather major "question" for Congress to require input on.

 

[brycejones]

Altering all energy production / consumption /prices throughout the nation seems like a rather major "question" for Congress to require input on.

LOL

 

[ivwshane]

Altering all energy production / consumption /prices throughout the nation seems like a rather major "question" for Congress to require input on.

And how was that “altering” done?

 

[Jaskalas]

And how was that “altering” done?

I don't know this case, I assume the EPA was taking an action that was brought before the Court.

 

[fskimospy]

Altering all energy production / consumption /prices throughout the nation seems like a rather major "question" for Congress to require input on.

So what though? Congress gave the EPA the authority to do that by the plain text of the law and nobody disputes this. If Congress doesn’t like what the EPA does with that authority it can change the law.

What the court here did was invent a new requirement that exists nowhere in any law or any part of the constitution and just makes a new requirement for any law it doesn’t like.

 

[brycejones]

I don't know this case, I assume the EPA was taking an action that was brought before the Court.

Maybe learn a bit before spouting off?

 

[IronWing]

Altering all energy production / consumption /prices throughout the nation seems like a rather major "question" for Congress to require input on.

Congress provided input. The Roberts court chose to ignore black letter law to provide the result Moscow Mitch's donors paid for.