The Supreme Court strikes again; EPA has been restricted

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,513
3,315
136
I don't know this case, I assume the EPA was taking an action that was brought before the Court.

1. Congress explicitly gave EPA power to regulate air pollution.
2. CO2 is an air pollutant.
3. SC says now Congress has to pass a separate law every time there's a new pollutant. Because reasons.
4. Profit.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
31,919
14,361
136
I don't know this case, I assume the EPA was taking an action that was brought before the Court.

I’ve provided enough links in this thread for you to educate yourself on the issue. Is there a reason you didn’t bother to look into it?

If congress created the EPA to address environmental issues and to clean up our water and reduce air pollution and they gave them authority to create regulations and enforcement of those regulations but congress did not say anything about either being too disruptive that they would need congressional approval first, then isn’t the Supreme Court legislating from the bench?

How is it in 2007 the Supreme Court ruled the EPA had broad authority and now it doesn’t? Which ruling do you think was legislating from the bench?
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
13,035
10,887
146
I’ve provided enough links in this thread for you to educate yourself on the issue. Is there a reason you didn’t bother to look into it?

If congress created the EPA to address environmental issues and to clean up our water and reduce air pollution and they gave them authority to create regulations and enforcement of those regulations but congress did not say anything about either being too disruptive that they would need congressional approval first, then isn’t the Supreme Court legislating from the bench?

How is it in 2007 the Supreme Court ruled the EPA had broad authority and now it doesn’t? Which ruling do you think was legislating from the bench?
As far as I can tell, the current SC is just stating that anything not expressly defined is forbidden. Like, anywhere and everywhere. Constitution, law, agency formation documents, literally anything and everything not written down doesn't count.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,438
12,821
146
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.
Here’s a small piece of what we have to look forward too - again. (Not even looking at the wider impact of this ruling.




The fog started building up in Donora on Wednesday, October 27, 1948. By the following day it was causing coughing and other signs of respiratory distress for many residents of the community in the Monongahela River valley. Many of the illnesses and deaths were initially attributed to asthma. The smog continued until it rained on Sunday, October 31, by which time 20 residents of Donora had died and approximately one third to one half of the town's population of 14,000 residents had been sickened. Another 50 residents died of respiratory causes within a month after the incident; notable among the fatalities was Lukasz Musial, the father of future baseball Hall of Famer and the 1948 National League MVP Stan Musial.

Hydrogen fluoride and sulfur dioxide emissions from U.S. Steel's Donora Zinc Works and its American Steel & Wireplant were frequent occurrences in Donora. What made the 1948 event more severe was a temperature inversion, a situation in which warmer air aloft traps pollution in a layer of colder air near the surface. The pollutants in the air mixed with fog to form a thick, yellowish, acrid smog that hung over Donora for five days. The sulfuric acid, nitrogen dioxide, fluorine, and other poisonous gases that usually dispersed into the atmosphere were caught in the inversion and accumulated until rain ended the weather pattern.[3]
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and pmv

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
31,919
14,361
136
As far as I can tell, the current SC is just stating that anything not expressly defined is forbidden. Like, anywhere and everywhere. Constitution, law, agency formation documents, literally anything and everything not written down doesn't count.

Yes, what they are saying is that congress doesn’t have the power to delegate its authority. That’s where this is headed.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,513
3,315
136
Yes, what they are saying is that congress doesn’t have the power to delegate its authority. That’s where this is headed.

Yep, like saying a board of directors has to approve everything, including what brand of coffee to get for the break room. The point is to overwhelm Congress to the point that nothing gets done (yes, even less than now). It's like a DDOS attack on the whole government.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
13,035
10,887
146
Yep, like saying a board of directors has to approve everything, including what brand of coffee to get for the break room. The point is to overwhelm Congress to the point that nothing gets done (yes, even less than now). It's like a DDOS attack on the whole government.
I mean just the last week and a half from the SC has given the senate enough to fight over for, well, about 40 years since that's how long it took to establish it all.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,756
752
126
I can only hope these idiotic partisan SCOTUS rulings may negatively impact GOP in the mid terms. Here's hoping. Surely even Cletus from Hoboville can see the problems with burning rivers.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,480
7,383
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.

Thomas would write a concurrence implying that kittens were next for the chop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,102
9,159
136
I can only hope these idiotic partisan SCOTUS rulings may negatively impact GOP in the mid terms. Here's hoping. Surely even Cletus from Hoboville can see the problems with burning rivers.
Not until it happens to them. Freedom means they can do whatever they want, including poison the whole goddamn planet. Because muh freedoms
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,480
7,383
136
What are the implications of this for other agencies? The EPA isn't the only case where the legislature has "sub-let" its powers to an agency, rather than have to legislate on every detail, no? Are there going to be other areas, involving other agencies, where the same trick can be employed to render them toothless?
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
13,035
10,887
146
What are the implications of this for other agencies? The EPA isn't the only case where the legislature has "sub-let" its powers to an agency, rather than have to legislate on every detail, no? Are there going to be other areas, involving other agencies, where the same trick can be employed to render them toothless?
The implications are enormous. It technically has the effect (ability?) to nullify basically every action of every agency that isn't codified in the charter, or hasn't been expressly mandated by congress. SCOTUS has essentially decided to de-legitimize every agency's ability to work with autonomy.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
82,027
44,791
136
The implications are enormous. It technically has the effect (ability?) to nullify basically every action of every agency that isn't codified in the charter, or hasn't been expressly mandated by congress. SCOTUS has essentially decided to de-legitimize every agency's ability to work with autonomy.
Yes, I suspect an avalanche of new lawsuits challenging every major regulation under the sun are being prepared right now.

Essentially this sets up SCOTUS as a sort of super legislature where it can pick and choose the policies it likes and permit only those to go into effect.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
44,671
29,988
136
Yes, I suspect an avalanche of new lawsuits challenging every major regulation under the sun are being prepared right now.

Essentially this sets up SCOTUS as a sort of super legislature where it can pick and choose the policies it likes and permit only those to go into effect.

If SCOTUS is simply going to ignore entirely clear and constitutional black letter law to do what they want I absolutely think it should "go though some things", institutionally speaking.