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.
They never had unlimited powers. Congress specifically foresaw that issues could be identified that needed to be addressed and gave the EPA the power to do so. The majority opinion in this case uses a made up doctrine to decide that the black letter law as written isn’t valid. If you’re concerned about the rule of law you should be outraged at this decision.at least to me, telling federal agencies that they don't have unlimited powers is also a good thing. where the line is, is for congress to figure out, not the agency to push the line further and further.
They never had unlimited powers. Congress specifically foresaw that issues could be identified that needed to be addressed and gave the EPA the power to do so. The majority opinion in this case uses a made up doctrine to decide that the black letter law as written isn’t valid. If you’re concerned about the rule of law you should be outraged at this decision.
You can absolutely run a power plant with no profit. Non profits are a thing already, and they survive just fine.
You ask others to think about this rationally, and then struggle to do so yourself.
So what are you waiting for? Go raise $5 billion dollars and start a non profit power plant. Im sure your investors will be pleased to lose all their invested money because they will never get anything back much less any earnings.
Sounds like a winner to me!
View attachment 63928
So what are you waiting for? Go raise $5 billion dollars and start a non profit power plant. Im sure your investors will be pleased to lose all their invested money because they will never get anything back much less any earnings.
Sounds like a winner to me!
View attachment 63928
Well that was how it worked here (the power plants all being state-owned), till the Conservatives privatized them all. Which led to our dependence on Russian gas, and then to chaos, with utility companies going bankrupt en masse, and energy bills going through the roof.
Though much of it is still state-owned, just by foreign states (EDF are owned by the French government).
Humanity will not survive unregulated capitalism in the energy sector.So what are you waiting for? Go raise $5 billion dollars and start a non profit power plant. Im sure your investors will be pleased to lose all their invested money because they will never get anything back much less any earnings.
Sounds like a winner to me!
View attachment 63928
Felix will be dead. He doesn't care. He's a FYGM type.Humanity will not survive unregulated capitalism in the energy sector.
Oh, i c, you went with the irrational hyperbole some more.
Way to once again solidly reveal what YOUR motivations are. Naked capitalism, fuck people, fuck the planet.
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?
Basic services like utilities should not be privately owned. Capitalism does not work at those scales. You can't have any real competition on something that is a basic need for everyone. Especially when the entry price is so high it requires the government to pick winners for it to happen at all. That is not capitalism, it is some weird form of corporate feudalism.Humanity will not survive unregulated capitalism in the energy sector.
Our public services should probably just be controlled by an AI at this point. Current system is too open to exploitation to be tenable.Basic services like utilities should not be privately owned. Capitalism does not work at those scales. You can't have any real competition on something that is a basic need for everyone. Especially when the entry price is so high it requires the government to pick winners for it to happen at all. That is not capitalism, it is some weird form of corporate feudalism.
Basic services like utilities should not be privately owned. Capitalism does not work at those scales. You can't have any real competition on something that is a basic need for everyone. Especially when the entry price is so high it requires the government to pick winners for it to happen at all. That is not capitalism, it is some weird form of corporate feudalism.
I'm sure they will come up with a new bullshit reason to throw it out. But good job Dems.
gop and associates will be upset
Now if they can pull that trick again with "airborne hazards" and OSHA for the next time we get a global pandemic...
gop and associates will be upset
Same thing happened to most of the hospitals in this country. Thanks Nixon.Well that was how it worked here (the power plants all being state-owned), till the Conservatives privatized them all. Which led to our dependence on Russian gas, and then to chaos, with utility companies going bankrupt en masse, and energy bills going through the roof.
Though much of it is still state-owned, just by foreign states (EDF are owned by the French government).
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?
I get your overall complaint and I share it (that a dysfunctional Congress is destroying our government) but in this case Congress HAD acted. The system was working as intended until SCOTUS created a new requirement with no basis in the statute or Constitution. Their reasoning was literally this:1. The thread is not about coal fired plants. The particulars of the court case are largely auxiliary to the power struggle at play here. The meat we're chewing on is the balance between Congress, the Court, and Agencies. You asked of it, but in my haste I did not look at the case.
2. The Court can do as it likes. Legislating from the bench is simply a term for decisions Republicans do not like. In their victory, you have adopted their language. It remains tripe.
Having had time to chew on this, it all stems from a dysfunctional government. The OP article has a quote.
"That's a very big deal because they're not going to get it from Congress because Congress is essentially dysfunctional," said Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus This fact also gave rise to the Republican Court opinion of fearing Agency overreach without Congressional input. Yet their posited solution will not work without said input. A disastrous take, to rely on something that cannot be relied upon. It should also be true that, if an Agency oversteps, Congress is free to reign it in. They can snap their fingers and achieve said goal of asserting their own power over the Agency. The issue remains, many in Congress support either side and no one has enough votes to act.
So then we turn to our executive to act in their stead. And in turn, the Institution that is our government body and its many Agencies. Because of this, and the observations above, I begrudgingly oppose this Court decision. Sure - I would like us to be more Democratic, but we must make do with what we have until a proper solution is achieved, and this Court decision is NOT it.
The judiciary can now invalidate any regulation it doesn't like without requiring a basis in the law or the Constitution.