Supreme Court limits Biden's power to cut emissions

[Peerie Maa]

Frankly, I am appalled.

I never had much respect for SCOTUS since Heller, then Roe v Wade, and now this.
The biggest bunch of irresponsible morons outside the Cuckoos Nest.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lost some of its power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court represents a major setback to President Joe Biden's climate plans.
He called it a "devastating decision" but said it would not undermine his effort to tackle the climate crisis.
The case against the EPA was brought by West Virginia on behalf of 18 other mostly Republican-led states and some of the nation's largest coal companies.
They were challenging whether the agency has the power to regulate planet-warming emissions for state-wide power sectors or just individual power plants.
These 19 states were worried their power sectors would be regulated and they would be forced to move away from using coal, at a severe economic cost.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62000742

[woodpile]

The legislative branch of US government makes laws, NOT the EPA.

[Joe (SoCal)]

The legislative branch of US government makes laws, NOT the EPA.

1 Did Mr Biden legitimately win the 2020 presidential election? If not, why not?
2. What do you think of the attempt to interfere by force with the electoral vote count on January 6, 2021? If you approve, explain.

[Peerie Maa]

The legislative branch of US government makes laws, NOT the EPA.

The legislative branch of your government are a bunch of incompetent, corrupt morons.

[ron ll]

Gotta ask yourself, who benefits from this ruling? It sure isn’t We the People. It’s a few greedy coal companies that can’t see past their own smudged noses.

[stromborg]

The legislative branch of your government are a bunch of incompetent, corrupt morons.

Not all of them, but definitely enough to bring down the institution.

[Peerie Maa]

[woodpile]

The legislative branch of your government are a bunch of incompetent, corrupt morons.

You may be right, however, it does not change the separated functions of US government and it's the high court's job to let them know when they overreach.

[Peerie Maa]

You may be right, however, it does not change the separated functions of US government and it's the high court's job to let them know when they overreach.

I would have some respect for them if they considered the outcomes of their moronic decisions.
Heller armed the US, so you have 120 times more gun deaths per 100k of population than the more civilized nations.
The abortion decision has set the US back to where the Irish were three decades ago, when the Church held them back in the Middle Ages.
Now this ruling damages the planet.

Totally irresponsible morons.

[Tom Montgomery]

I would have some respect for them if they considered the outcomes of their moronic decisions.
Heller armed the US, so you have 120 times more gun deaths per 100k of population than the more civilized nations.
The abortion decision has set the US back to where the Irish were three decades ago, when the Church held them back in the Middle Ages.
Now this ruling damages the planet.

Totally irresponsible morons.

But we are proud of the ideological purity of our totally irresponsible morons.

[Too Little Time]

I would have some respect for them if they considered the outcomes of their moronic decisions.
Heller armed the US, so you have 120 times more gun deaths per 100k of population than the more civilized nations.
The abortion decision has set the US back to where the Irish were three decades ago, when the Church held them back in the Middle Ages.
Now this ruling damages the planet.

Totally irresponsible morons.

While those decisions and many others are not to my liking, there does seem to be support for them. Both legally and popularly.

That is a problem of the governed. Sometimes they get what they want.

[elf]

If the job of promulgating regulations in myriad highly technical and specialized fields cannot be delegated by the legislature, then we must expand the legislature to a number sufficiently skilled to promulgate those regulations.

[CWSmith]

The GOP owns the Supreme Court and this is just the start.

[Osborne Russell]

https://forum.woodenboat.com/showthr...39#post6687239

No they didn't.

They ruled that Congress had not given the EPA (not "Biden") the authority. They did not rule that Congress could not do so.

“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’ ” Roberts wrote, referring to a court precedent. “But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.”

Congress tells the EPA to clean up the air. The EPA decides, in order to do that, we'll need to nationalize the entire power grid and all power plants. The first question is, did Congress give the EPA that authority? If not, game over. Rule of law, not men.

[Osborne Russell]

If the job of promulgating regulations in myriad highly technical and specialized fields cannot be delegated by the legislature . . .

But it can.

[Keith Wilson]

Of course, whether the decision is right or wrong, the rational response would simply be to amend the law, explicitly giving the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions to reduce climate change. No problem, right? A simple clarification. But of course the Republicans have vanished over the starboard horizon, and would no more vote for that than for legalizing human sacrifice.

[Osborne Russell]

If the EPA determines that it needs the legal authority to do X, and there is the slightest question as to whether they have the authority, the obvious answer is to ask Congress for it. That process -- the mere analysis of legal authority and the asking of Congress for more, if necessary, is a vital part of their mission. To tell Congress what they need, and why. Then it's Congress' job to make a record supporting a delegation of additional power. No shortcuts, no "go ahead, and maybe no one will notice." You don't fight the oil companies like that.

This a classic case of Congress not doing its job, and when it blows up in their face, as with the Voting Rights Act, attempting to blame the Supreme Court, diminishing its legitimacy and the authority of institutions of government in general. With the media not coming within a country mile of reporting the facts accurately; rather, peddling sensation and falsehood to the ignorant.

We got to move these refrigerators
We to to move these color TV's

When Trump does it, it's reprehensible. When Libs do it, it's reprehensible -- with added hypocrisy and cowardice.

[Osborne Russell]

Of course, whether the decision is right or wrong, the rational response would simply be to amend the law, explicitly giving the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions to reduce climate change. No problem, right? A simple clarification. But of course the Republicans have vanished over the starboard horizon, and would no more vote for that than for legalizing human sacrifice.

That's "American Democracy", right? Libs, you've lost a ton of elections, and you feel the Supreme Court has a duty to bail you out. When they don't, you cry, "The Court is corrupt! The system is broken!" It's a rogue Court!" and all the rest of that contemptible Democrat and media slobber.

Pitiful. You are as much to blame as the Reds. Because you are ignorant of the republic, you can't defend it against the Reds. It has consequences, which are piling up.

[Peerie Maa]

While those decisions and many others are not to my liking, there does seem to be support for them. Both legally and popularly.

That is a problem of the governed. Sometimes they get what they want.

Are you sure that with the patron-client relationship in US politics, the citizenry is getting what they want?
Or is it that big business are purchasing what they want?

[Boatbum]

The legislative branch of your government are a bunch of incompetent, corrupt morons.

I can't disagree with that, but they ARE the ones responsible for the creation of law. Not an unelected politically appointed government employee

[skuthorp]

Of course, whether the decision is right or wrong, the rational response would simply be to amend the law, explicitly giving the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions to reduce climate change. No problem, right? A simple clarification. But of course the Republicans have vanished over the starboard horizon, and would no more vote for that than for legalizing human sacrifice.

But they have Keith………………… Millions of them.

[John Smith]

I can't disagree with that, but they ARE the ones responsible for the creation of law. Not an unelected politically appointed government employee

Sadly they are beholden to large donors. Money talks.

[LeeG]

The legislative branch of US government makes laws, NOT the EPA.

Yeah, and Congress decides on taking the country to war not the president.

[Peerie Maa]

I can't disagree with that, but they ARE the ones responsible for the creation of law. Not an unelected politically appointed government employee

From another thread:

It is not a coup. It is your peculiar constitutional system collapsing under its own contradictions.

The US has a schizophrenic system, with the electoral college, the filibuster, gerrymandering, the power of states to make it hard to vote, and other crap that no functioning democracy has to deal with. As a result the people in power in the three branches often don't reflect the will of the people. But that's how your system was designed.

Any right-thinking government employees technical experts to advise it on the hard stuff, and then listens to them, they do not operate a Roman Senate system of patron-client obligations.

[Boatbum]

From another thread:

Any right-thinking government employees technical experts to advise it on the hard stuff, and then listens to them, they do not operate a Roman Senate system of patron-client obligations.

There are definitely times when it is more efficient to let a government official do this, but (and this is my opinion only) not constitutional nor a good practice to have unelected people effectively create laws that can impact significantly on your life. It lends itself to tyranny (again in my opinion).

[Too Little Time]

Are you sure that with the patron-client relationship in US politics, the citizenry is getting what they want?
Or is it that big business are purchasing what they want?

As frequently happens many citizens have negotiated a poor deal. Those in my age group negotiated a really good life for themselves. They gave little thought to others. And now they are complaining and finding that those who they ignored have abandoned them. How about that. I abandoned the Democrats a long time ago. Just a man without a party.

There are a lot of individuals who sold their skills to their employers. Mostly they made bad deals. The individuals thought they made enough money. Their employers made large profits. If money buys political power, the employers could purchase what they want. The same could be said about consumers and businesses.

I quit my last job when I was told I would not get a fair share of the profits I made for the business. My wife quit her job for the same reason. If enough individuals did the same, businesses would have less political power. But I expect not too many individuals would be willing to quit if not given a fair share of the profits.

[Peerie Maa]

There are definitely times when it is more efficient to let a government official do this, but (and this is my opinion only) not constitutional nor a good practice to have unelected people effectively create laws that can impact significantly on your life. It lends itself to tyranny (again in my opinion).

Try our model.
The elected politicians notice that a law is required. They have their staff research what is needed and draft the legislation. Then it is debated and polished by the elected officials and eventually put into law.
Do your representatives not have access to expert opinion, or do they just say what their partons tell them to say?

[Too Little Time]

Do your representatives not have access to expert opinion, or do they just say what their partons tell them to say?

Obama thought he was a constitutional law expert. Part of the ACA - his hallmark legislation, was in part unconstitutional on grounds any casual observer would have seen as obvious.

I expect there are those who just think the will not be challenged.

[RFNK]

But it can.

But it won't.

SNAFU

[RFNK]

There are definitely times when it is more efficient to let a government official do this, but (and this is my opinion only) not constitutional nor a good practice to have unelected people effectively create laws that can impact significantly on your life. It lends itself to tyranny (again in my opinion).

Right, as opposed, presumably, to allowing a bunch of reactionary, unelected 'legal' morons appointed by FWITs accelerate the country's and, now, the planet's, slide to wrack and ruin. Genius.

[Osborne Russell]

But it won't.

SNAFU

So blaming it on the Supreme Court is wrong. As with the Voting Rights Act. SOS

[RFNK]

Congress won't change the law because your completely FU system won't allow that to happen.

[Osborne Russell]

Congress won't change the law because your completely FU system won't allow that to happen.

"The system" is going to stop Congress from changing a law?

[RFNK]

Congress is the system. When was the last time Congress actually achieved anything worthwhile? When was the last time Congress actually reflected the will of the people?

[RFNK]

The answer is that it's a very long time since Congress actually did anything worthwhile. Congress is ruled by the MIC so all you'll ever see is Congress implementing action that supports the MIC. You don't actually have a democracy. You have a puppet government. Until the public gets off their collective backsides and exercises their voice, that's all you'll ever have. Sadly.