The Supreme Court strikes again; EPA has been restricted

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,747
11,957
136
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.


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

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,132
2,695
126
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.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
40,604
19,614
136
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

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,561
32,187
136
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.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
20,262
6,984
136
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

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,561
32,187
136

kt

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2000
5,773
911
126
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

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
31,242
4,749
126
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.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,561
32,187
136
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.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY