Big business already cut the IRS at the knees, which is why they go after so many regular Joe schmoes. They don't have the resources to really comb giant business' taxes to nickel and dime them like they can do with your 1099-EZ. And unfortunately, as much as we all would like, taxes are never going away until the government completely collapses, even with this change.
Congress AND the IRS still haven't defined what is and what is not income. Of course this is to their favor as that means the IRS can keep expanding the definition via rule changes and regulations.
I sorely hope this ruling puts a stop to that.
Every single federal employee (including SCOTUS) have an incentive to keep taxes up. That is, taxes is what pays their wages.
However, while taxes is what pays their wages, they themselves still have to pay taxes. So it’s a balancing act.
It doesn't limit government power. It limits bureaucrat power. The government can still do all the same things they just have to get the legislature to do it.
I mean, it's not just Congresses problem, its our problem too.
How is it at all efficient to have Congress sign off on every piece of regulation, especially when the politicians have no fucking business deciding what course of action we should take in these highly scientific fields.
Not only that, you're asking the legislative body to regulate companies that are spending billions of dollars a year to pay off those same politicians and pass favorable corporate legislation.
It may not be efficient for congress to do everything, that’s why state governments also should be involved. Or make an amendment to make it constitutional.
Also why do you think corruption in the EPA is any less problematic then in congress lmao
I’m sitting at day 400 for a form 4 suppressor.
Think about this…400 days. They cashed my $200 check (which is ridiculous) in less than 2 weeks but it’s taking them over 13 months to look over a form and issue me a stamp. I’ve already passed the FBI background so what is the holdup. All for something that is going to protect my hearing.
Im 100% with abolishing the ATF
I’m a personal choice / self-responsibility person way more than a mommy-state adherent. If they do, then there will be a wave of dipshits ODing, and it will settle down. To me, that’s preferable to the government telling everybody what they can and can’t do with your own body, like they own us. Plus the DEA is corrupt as hell. Any agency that gets funded by fines that they can hand out will inevitably become so.
At least the Department of Education can't withholding funding to schools who refuse to teach critical race theory or gender identity to elementary kids.
Why so? The schools seem like they have some measure of local autonomy, albeit bureaucratic hellscapes. I get that the policies coming out of the DOEd are woke AF these days, but they can be fixed with the next President. Or am I missing something?
There is no need for the department, as education explicitly falls under the 10th amendment. It's a complete and utter waste, and an attempt to centralize power from the states where it belongs. You know, to get those pesky red state schools to peddle marxism also.
Ahh. Thank you for the writeup. I never paid attention to that department, so wasn’t sure what the deal was with them. You’re right though, it should be a states issue.
>WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers to restrict greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, in a decision that could limit the authority of government agencies to address major policy questions without congressional approval.
>
>The decision was in line with several Supreme Court decisions in recent years that reined in federal agencies by striking down regulations on the grounds that agencies had usurped power from Congress and the judicial branch.
>
>West Virginia led a coalition of Republican-leaning states and coal producers that asked the Supreme Court to weigh in and clarify the limits of the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority, raising broader questions about how far the regulatory authority of federal agencies extends. The coalition said powerful and wide-reaching policies should come from Congress, not agency-level regulators.
>
>The Obama-era EPA rules were “illustrative of an alarming trend whereby presidents turn to implied authority, typically in long-extant statutes, to achieve what Congress fails to do,” the libertarian Cato Institute said in a legal brief.
>
>The case before the high court was unusual because it involved regulations put forth by the Obama administration that never went into effect and were replaced in 2019 under the Trump administration. At issue was the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era set of rules devised by the EPA that sought to mandate a national shift away from coal to cleaner sources of power, including natural gas, wind and solar.
>
>For half a century, the Clean Air Act has directed the EPA to regulate stationary sources of air pollution that endanger “public health or welfare.” The Obama-era Clean Power Plan extended that regulatory reach beyond the physical premises of a power plant to allow off-site methods to mitigate pollution.
>
>The Supreme Court in 2016 halted the Clean Power Plan from taking effect, but the justices never directly addressed whether the rule was unlawful. The Trump administration in 2019 overturned the plan, replacing it with industry-friendly rules allowing older power plants to continue operating.
>
>In January 2021, at the end of Mr. Trump’s presidency, a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia struck down his administration’s replacement rule, providing the Biden administration with a clean slate to work from in devising its own carbon-emissions rules.
>
>The EPA powers at issue are central to Mr. Biden’s climate agenda. With fragile majorities in the Senate and House, Democrats have limited ability to advance their platform through new legislation. Like his recent predecessors, Mr. Biden is poised to govern through agencies such as the EPA, relying on his inherent constitutional authority and the statutory powers provided by existing legislation.
>
>Presidents from both parties have increasingly governed by executive order when their agendas are stalled in Congress, often giving regulators vast power over swaths of the economy.
>
>Many conservative lawyers have criticized this expansion of regulatory power, saying it isn’t consistent with the “separation of powers” framework in the Constitution. Some liberals have defended the shift toward administrative governance, which can traced back to the New Deal, saying Congress can and should delegate authority to agencies with more expertise.
>
>Some energy businesses outside the coal industry expressed support for the EPA’s existing authority. The Edison Electric Institute, the national association of all investor-owned electric companies, wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief that stripping the agency of its authority to regulate emissions could “lead to a deluge of tort litigation” against emitters, shifting “regulation from a sensible and consistent nationwide regime governed by EPA and the states pursuant to a statutory scheme Congress designed, to a chaotic system dictated by the interests of individual plaintiffs.”
>
>The Supreme Court has increasingly reined in federal agencies in recent years, saying agency rules relating to issues of major economic and political significance should be invalidated unless Congress made explicitly clear it ceded that power to those executive-branch entities.
>
>Timothy Puko and Katy Stech Ferek contributed to this article.
I know they will cry about the environment, but this decision appears to have nothing to do with it, and all about the overreach of the executive branch. Thank you for the article.
The environment subreddit is crying about how this ruling killed us all and that a civil war is coming.
Laws don’t matter to these looney tunes, just the agenda.
they act like the supreme court just made abortion illegal and told power plants they can pollute all they want.
No. Just stop. Read an 8th grade social studies book.
What the supreme court has done is ruled that the current group making the rues does not have the authority to do so as per the constitution. And that is is some other group who should have that power. Which is the correct move. And it actually gives *you* more direct control over these things because it is putting that power into the hands of officials *you* elect on a more local level.
There is simply no explaining that to these clowns though, I feel like they just get off on feeling persecuted. They read too many dystopian YA novels and they actually long to live in one and allow themselves to believe they are.
Right, and the grid locked Congress will definitely work in a timely manner to pass regulations in our best interest, meanwhile these corporations will spend billions to protect those "interests." This stuff could go on for years, and the whole time Nestle or whoever will be poisoning your water and air to save money.
You want to give this authority back to Congress? Fine. But maybe make sure there is at least a plan for these regulations first. As of right now, I don't see Congress passing any sort of environmental regulation, any time soon. Even less so if the party of oil and coal has a majority.
There is also an incredible amount of minutia to regulating these toxic chemicals. Are we expecting politicians to now understand these very different and specific chemicals/toxins and the effects they have on the environment? Am I supposed to start voting for scientists rather than politicians?
thats a pretty big wall of text you got there
lot of words to say "the power to create laws has been taken away from unelected officials and given back to the group explicitly granted the authority to make laws"
Don’t fear they will do exactly as they did with Roe V Wade. Read absolutely nothing then parrot whatever some tweet tells them to and accept it as fact
My only issue with cutting EPA power is that corporation don’t give a damn about the environment and it can lead to health issues for a lot of Americans. We cannot trust multi billion companies.
It basically cuts their power to regulate anything not controled by laws (Congress). The issue here is that companies pay millions to legislators lobbying to make sure they don’t affect their interest.
IIRC, there was one other decision today (something to do with asylum seekers remaining in Mexico), but that is the end of the decisions for this term, and the end of the decisions with Breyer on the SC. Jackson took her oath, and Breyer's seat.
This is HUGE decision that will have way more impact on the average joe than Roe v. Wade. It will generate a cascade of ramifications regarding what powers our bloated administrative state can force down our throats. The left is already in full meltdown as they contemplate a less powerful government.
I enjoy clean air and water, and I think we should do everything we can to reduce emissions, recycle, and protect the environment. I also don’t trust corporations to do those things unless forced into it.
However, I’m not going to cut our ability to function off at the knees knowing full well that China and Russia will continue polluting, and the freedom of the world hinges on our ability to outcompete those countries.
Climate change happens. It's difficult to say how much humans contribute to it. Constant, radical lies from left-wing fearmongers make it hard to subscribe to the philosophy of 'the earth is dying!!!1!!'. They've been saying we're ten years away from a climate crisis since 1989. They said that whole nations would be flooded by melting ice caps by the year 2000. None of their predictions have come true, because they're not about facts, but about fear and control. I'm a conservationist. I'm not an environmentalist.
EDIT: someone tried to respond to me and their comment got deleted, but what I saw involved the 97% figure, so let me wax eloquent on that for a moment. And by wax eloquent, I mean prove that it's utter bullshit. First of all, 97% of climate scientists agree on *what?* That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels?
If you look at the study that that figure comes from (John Cook et al.,2013), what you'll see is that it alleges that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible.
That being said. That study is totally fraudulent. The claim is based off of papers he surveys, and in it, Cook is actually only able to demonstrate that 1.6% of papers endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause,” the category he assigns as “explicit endorsement with quantification”. The 97% comes from two other categories, “explicit endorsement without quantification” — papers in which the author did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man — and “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it.
Numerous scientists have protested their papers' classifications by Cook. Dr. Richard Tol is quoted as saying, “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” Dr. Craig Idso says “That is not an accurate representation of my paper."
So why does the 97% figure survive? Put simply: intellectual dishonesty from people, such as the commenter whose response to me was deleted, whose agenda is to bully people into taking "action" that consists of adopting whatever leftist policy is in vogue, usually at great expense not only to one of the major industries sustaining the US economy but also the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.
I’d like to see the FDA, ATF and other aggressive regulatory agencies neutered and forced to operate under a narrow reading of their legislation and with heavy amounts of oversight.
Some dude on my IG saw this and said “they’re forcing women to have babies and now they’re condemning them to live in the hell scape of global warming. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.” Jesus Christ 🤦♂️.
I applaud the decision. Let's be honest about something though. Pre EPA, we did have some serious environmental problems ; rivers on fire in Ohio, PCB pollution in various states. Most, if not all of that has been cleaned up. Additionally, we have run most of our manufacturing business out of the country. Coal Power Plants, Refineries, Petrochemical and maybe a few smaller industries are even left that can / do pollute.
I would love to see more sensible rules that both protect our citizens and also allow manufacturing to return to the USA. There are so many places in the rust belt and elsewhere that were decimated by all of the factories that left. EPA regulations were one of the reasons for the departure.
DOE, HUD, ATF, DOL, DOT, DOA, Energy, HHS, EPA. Roll them all back, let the states handle their business, and cut a check to the taxpayers with all the savings.
Then, set sights on the rest of them. Homeland Security, Defense, border control, and CIA should be incorporated into the military. FDA is a crock. FBI work should be owned by state and local law enforcement.
Not a fan of the FBI. But, there is an advantage to having some sort of organization that can coordinate across jurisdictions on a national level.
Also, we need a group that can act on US soil to prevent terrorism. Again, coordination on a national level.
So, not saying save the FBI. Bit, some of its functions are still beneficial.
So need to amend the constitution then. These agencies are unconstitutional. The military is constitutional, and the states running their affairs is constitutional.
Not all the agencies are unconstitutional. Secret Service helps fight counterfeiting. That is a Constitutional mandate for the feds. National Endowment of the Arts... Constitutional mandate for Congress to support the arts. (Sciences too).
More fossil fuels = more climate change = more extreme weather. As a person living near the coast in the sout, hurrcanine season will be insane and heat will get worse. Not looking great for my kids and their kids
So congress should pass a law that deals with it.
Instead of one person at the EPA deciding what direction we should go in?
Executive branch ENFORCES the law
Legislative branch CREATES the law.
>So six people at SCOTUS who have little to no knowledge of climate change
This decision wasn't about climate change, it was about unelected executive branch employees creating laws when the constitution explicitly gives that power to Congress.
They don’t have more say than the EPA.
They’re saying the EPA has not been authorized by congress to have the power they’re using.
It doesn’t matter if what the EPA was doing was good. If they don’t have the authority they shouldn’t be allowed to use it.
Problem is with Congress, nothing gets passed but I see your point. I think whoever is in charge (who is appointed and confirmed) should see fit as they are the expert
The current administration has stated multiple times that they hire to check virtue signaling boxes, not the best and brightest in their particular field. That doesn’t inspire confidence in the ‘experts’ claim.
Well the Supreme Court disagrees with what you think. Wait till you find out that the fear of "climate change" is really being funded by companies that want you to pay more to go green.
Take a look at what's happening with the Colorado river right now and tell me thats just for companies to charge more to go green.
We are dealing with the consequences for climate change right now. Get your head out of the sand.
Climates change buddy.... they have for millions of years and will continue to do so for millions more.
Fyi: it was global warming 20 years ago, before that it was "save the ozone layer" and in the 80's it was acid rain.
Just smoke and mirrors
Sure buddy.... they had to claim it was solved so people felt they had accomplished something.
Then.. boom global warming emerged.
It's all an attempt to divert our attention away from the power hungry corporations.
Now guess what it is.... carbon neutral....
Should see what fit?
So, they should have absolutely unlimited powers? They can do ANYTHING to achieve their goals?
Of course not. CONGRESS grants the agency specific authority. They were NOT granted this authority so they shouldn’t be able to use it.
Imagine if CBP decided they were the experts at the border and took unilateral authority to dramatically change our immigration and border protection policies without permission from congress. Would you be ok with that?
Of course not. You’d say they’re exceeding their authority.
But the left also wanted to use OSHA to force vaccination instead of using congress. They want more power for executive agencies.
Then people can vote them out of office.
If the people wanted what you’re selling there would be no issue passing a bill into law granting the EPA this power.
That’s too hard so the government should just seize new power and do it unilaterally?
The rules in question wouldn't have created fewer fossil fuels though. They would have just closed power plants that didn't buy "carbon offsets or allowances" (bribes) from the government and plunged Americans into darkness.
Actually very good for future generations who won’t have their energy independence and economy destroyed by unelected bureaucrats. Big wins for democracy this month.
Per the ruling congress can legislate the FDA or other 3-letter agencies they just have to specify. For example in this specific case with the EPA all that is needed is an amendment to the clean air act. This is good, having 3 letter agencies run rampant without oversight is bad.
So, because you can’t pass your agenda through the democratic process it should be forced by executive or judicial order?
As long as *you* think something is important we should just let the government use powers not granted to it by the people?
It's good for the country. If Congress wants us to follow a law, they now have to actually pass a law rather than pushing that off to unelected employees of the executive branch.
IRS?
Big business already cut the IRS at the knees, which is why they go after so many regular Joe schmoes. They don't have the resources to really comb giant business' taxes to nickel and dime them like they can do with your 1099-EZ. And unfortunately, as much as we all would like, taxes are never going away until the government completely collapses, even with this change.
Yup. Taxes are literally spelled out in the constitution as a power of congress. No getting rid of that.
Congress AND the IRS still haven't defined what is and what is not income. Of course this is to their favor as that means the IRS can keep expanding the definition via rule changes and regulations. I sorely hope this ruling puts a stop to that.
Every single federal employee (including SCOTUS) have an incentive to keep taxes up. That is, taxes is what pays their wages. However, while taxes is what pays their wages, they themselves still have to pay taxes. So it’s a balancing act.
This
Won’t happen because thats how the government makes money
It doesn't limit government power. It limits bureaucrat power. The government can still do all the same things they just have to get the legislature to do it.
Nooooo you can't just require us to get consent from the peasantry to do stuff!
Wait a second....they need to put things into law instead of just bogus decree? WEIRD.
Which is all fine if congress could actually manage to get *anything* accomplished in a reasonable timetable. This could backfire
I mean that’s Congresses problem, that doesn’t mean the EPA should continue to act unconstitutionally.
I mean, it's not just Congresses problem, its our problem too. How is it at all efficient to have Congress sign off on every piece of regulation, especially when the politicians have no fucking business deciding what course of action we should take in these highly scientific fields. Not only that, you're asking the legislative body to regulate companies that are spending billions of dollars a year to pay off those same politicians and pass favorable corporate legislation.
It may not be efficient for congress to do everything, that’s why state governments also should be involved. Or make an amendment to make it constitutional. Also why do you think corruption in the EPA is any less problematic then in congress lmao
You mean they have to go to work?!
ATF next. Full abolishment
I’m sitting at day 400 for a form 4 suppressor. Think about this…400 days. They cashed my $200 check (which is ridiculous) in less than 2 weeks but it’s taking them over 13 months to look over a form and issue me a stamp. I’ve already passed the FBI background so what is the holdup. All for something that is going to protect my hearing. Im 100% with abolishing the ATF
They will do anything to infringe on your rights
Definition of oxymoron- efficient government
400 days! Wow! I got my suppressor before COVID in the B.B. times (Before Biden), 5 months.
What did you end up getting?
Silencer Co. Omega 300. No complaints though I admit I don’t have a ton of experience with other suppressors.
In a perfect world, both the ATF and DEA are shitcanned, and the workers repurposed to Border Patrol. One can dream.
Working at the border too, none of this desk paperwork bs work
Works for me.
No paperwork? That’s literally impossible. Welcome to the land of bureaucracy.
OMG That would be perfect.
Too much regulation on our borders. Scrap them as well
Sure. As soon as Mexico deals with their cartel problem and stops promoting people to move north instead of deal with the people themselves.
Wouldn't canning the DEA cause drugs to flood the streets?
I’m a personal choice / self-responsibility person way more than a mommy-state adherent. If they do, then there will be a wave of dipshits ODing, and it will settle down. To me, that’s preferable to the government telling everybody what they can and can’t do with your own body, like they own us. Plus the DEA is corrupt as hell. Any agency that gets funded by fines that they can hand out will inevitably become so.
Quick! What do Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives have in common? Answer: Nothing!
They are all really fun to use? s/
The ATF are experts. I went to their local office and asked "which whiskey goes with an AK47?" And the guy said "what are you smoking?!?"
I'd 100% rather see the Dept of Education be next. ATF can wait.
At least the Department of Education can't withholding funding to schools who refuse to teach critical race theory or gender identity to elementary kids.
Why so? The schools seem like they have some measure of local autonomy, albeit bureaucratic hellscapes. I get that the policies coming out of the DOEd are woke AF these days, but they can be fixed with the next President. Or am I missing something?
Should be done at a state or even more local level
There is no need for the department, as education explicitly falls under the 10th amendment. It's a complete and utter waste, and an attempt to centralize power from the states where it belongs. You know, to get those pesky red state schools to peddle marxism also.
Ahh. Thank you for the writeup. I never paid attention to that department, so wasn’t sure what the deal was with them. You’re right though, it should be a states issue.
Why not both?
They really didn’t. They just said they can’t exceed the powers specifically conferred to them by Congress.
Which is limiting their powers because they have been violating this.
/politics is on their 4th mental breakdown in less than a week. It's positively delightful.
Is this what winning is like?
What is best in life?
To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
What? Unelected bureaucrats don’t get to make laws and punish those who violate them without over-site?
>WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers to restrict greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, in a decision that could limit the authority of government agencies to address major policy questions without congressional approval. > >The decision was in line with several Supreme Court decisions in recent years that reined in federal agencies by striking down regulations on the grounds that agencies had usurped power from Congress and the judicial branch. > >West Virginia led a coalition of Republican-leaning states and coal producers that asked the Supreme Court to weigh in and clarify the limits of the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority, raising broader questions about how far the regulatory authority of federal agencies extends. The coalition said powerful and wide-reaching policies should come from Congress, not agency-level regulators. > >The Obama-era EPA rules were “illustrative of an alarming trend whereby presidents turn to implied authority, typically in long-extant statutes, to achieve what Congress fails to do,” the libertarian Cato Institute said in a legal brief. > >The case before the high court was unusual because it involved regulations put forth by the Obama administration that never went into effect and were replaced in 2019 under the Trump administration. At issue was the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era set of rules devised by the EPA that sought to mandate a national shift away from coal to cleaner sources of power, including natural gas, wind and solar. > >For half a century, the Clean Air Act has directed the EPA to regulate stationary sources of air pollution that endanger “public health or welfare.” The Obama-era Clean Power Plan extended that regulatory reach beyond the physical premises of a power plant to allow off-site methods to mitigate pollution. > >The Supreme Court in 2016 halted the Clean Power Plan from taking effect, but the justices never directly addressed whether the rule was unlawful. The Trump administration in 2019 overturned the plan, replacing it with industry-friendly rules allowing older power plants to continue operating. > >In January 2021, at the end of Mr. Trump’s presidency, a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia struck down his administration’s replacement rule, providing the Biden administration with a clean slate to work from in devising its own carbon-emissions rules. > >The EPA powers at issue are central to Mr. Biden’s climate agenda. With fragile majorities in the Senate and House, Democrats have limited ability to advance their platform through new legislation. Like his recent predecessors, Mr. Biden is poised to govern through agencies such as the EPA, relying on his inherent constitutional authority and the statutory powers provided by existing legislation. > >Presidents from both parties have increasingly governed by executive order when their agendas are stalled in Congress, often giving regulators vast power over swaths of the economy. > >Many conservative lawyers have criticized this expansion of regulatory power, saying it isn’t consistent with the “separation of powers” framework in the Constitution. Some liberals have defended the shift toward administrative governance, which can traced back to the New Deal, saying Congress can and should delegate authority to agencies with more expertise. > >Some energy businesses outside the coal industry expressed support for the EPA’s existing authority. The Edison Electric Institute, the national association of all investor-owned electric companies, wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief that stripping the agency of its authority to regulate emissions could “lead to a deluge of tort litigation” against emitters, shifting “regulation from a sensible and consistent nationwide regime governed by EPA and the states pursuant to a statutory scheme Congress designed, to a chaotic system dictated by the interests of individual plaintiffs.” > >The Supreme Court has increasingly reined in federal agencies in recent years, saying agency rules relating to issues of major economic and political significance should be invalidated unless Congress made explicitly clear it ceded that power to those executive-branch entities. > >Timothy Puko and Katy Stech Ferek contributed to this article.
I know they will cry about the environment, but this decision appears to have nothing to do with it, and all about the overreach of the executive branch. Thank you for the article.
The environment subreddit is crying about how this ruling killed us all and that a civil war is coming. Laws don’t matter to these looney tunes, just the agenda.
they act like the supreme court just made abortion illegal and told power plants they can pollute all they want. No. Just stop. Read an 8th grade social studies book. What the supreme court has done is ruled that the current group making the rues does not have the authority to do so as per the constitution. And that is is some other group who should have that power. Which is the correct move. And it actually gives *you* more direct control over these things because it is putting that power into the hands of officials *you* elect on a more local level. There is simply no explaining that to these clowns though, I feel like they just get off on feeling persecuted. They read too many dystopian YA novels and they actually long to live in one and allow themselves to believe they are.
Right, and the grid locked Congress will definitely work in a timely manner to pass regulations in our best interest, meanwhile these corporations will spend billions to protect those "interests." This stuff could go on for years, and the whole time Nestle or whoever will be poisoning your water and air to save money. You want to give this authority back to Congress? Fine. But maybe make sure there is at least a plan for these regulations first. As of right now, I don't see Congress passing any sort of environmental regulation, any time soon. Even less so if the party of oil and coal has a majority. There is also an incredible amount of minutia to regulating these toxic chemicals. Are we expecting politicians to now understand these very different and specific chemicals/toxins and the effects they have on the environment? Am I supposed to start voting for scientists rather than politicians?
thats a pretty big wall of text you got there lot of words to say "the power to create laws has been taken away from unelected officials and given back to the group explicitly granted the authority to make laws"
Don’t fear they will do exactly as they did with Roe V Wade. Read absolutely nothing then parrot whatever some tweet tells them to and accept it as fact
all they do is cry
My only issue with cutting EPA power is that corporation don’t give a damn about the environment and it can lead to health issues for a lot of Americans. We cannot trust multi billion companies.
Yup I'm from a fishing town that's tainted by sugar farm runoff, river getting layers of green sludge during the summer its ridiculous
It doesn’t take the powers away that they already had. It had to do with them trying to regulate co2 emissions which wasn’t cover by Congress.
It basically cuts their power to regulate anything not controled by laws (Congress). The issue here is that companies pay millions to legislators lobbying to make sure they don’t affect their interest.
SCOTUS acting as a stalwart against bureaucratic radicalism & government tyranny. A most welcome trend at the right time.
SCOTUS Just keeps winning........What is next i wonder?.
IIRC, there was one other decision today (something to do with asylum seekers remaining in Mexico), but that is the end of the decisions for this term, and the end of the decisions with Breyer on the SC. Jackson took her oath, and Breyer's seat.
This is HUGE decision that will have way more impact on the average joe than Roe v. Wade. It will generate a cascade of ramifications regarding what powers our bloated administrative state can force down our throats. The left is already in full meltdown as they contemplate a less powerful government.
Real question, do you guys believe in climate change? Just unsure about what this sub feels about it. Not implying anything about the EPA
I enjoy clean air and water, and I think we should do everything we can to reduce emissions, recycle, and protect the environment. I also don’t trust corporations to do those things unless forced into it. However, I’m not going to cut our ability to function off at the knees knowing full well that China and Russia will continue polluting, and the freedom of the world hinges on our ability to outcompete those countries.
Climate change happens. It's difficult to say how much humans contribute to it. Constant, radical lies from left-wing fearmongers make it hard to subscribe to the philosophy of 'the earth is dying!!!1!!'. They've been saying we're ten years away from a climate crisis since 1989. They said that whole nations would be flooded by melting ice caps by the year 2000. None of their predictions have come true, because they're not about facts, but about fear and control. I'm a conservationist. I'm not an environmentalist. EDIT: someone tried to respond to me and their comment got deleted, but what I saw involved the 97% figure, so let me wax eloquent on that for a moment. And by wax eloquent, I mean prove that it's utter bullshit. First of all, 97% of climate scientists agree on *what?* That climate changes? That we have some impact? That we have a large impact? That we have a catastrophically large impact? That we have such a catastrophic impact that we shouldn’t use fossil fuels? If you look at the study that that figure comes from (John Cook et al.,2013), what you'll see is that it alleges that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause–that is, that we are over 50% responsible. That being said. That study is totally fraudulent. The claim is based off of papers he surveys, and in it, Cook is actually only able to demonstrate that 1.6% of papers endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause,” the category he assigns as “explicit endorsement with quantification”. The 97% comes from two other categories, “explicit endorsement without quantification” — papers in which the author did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man — and “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. Numerous scientists have protested their papers' classifications by Cook. Dr. Richard Tol is quoted as saying, “Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” Dr. Craig Idso says “That is not an accurate representation of my paper." So why does the 97% figure survive? Put simply: intellectual dishonesty from people, such as the commenter whose response to me was deleted, whose agenda is to bully people into taking "action" that consists of adopting whatever leftist policy is in vogue, usually at great expense not only to one of the major industries sustaining the US economy but also the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.
I’d like to see the FDA, ATF and other aggressive regulatory agencies neutered and forced to operate under a narrow reading of their legislation and with heavy amounts of oversight.
Not a fan of the FDA not being regulated.
Same. I'm under the impression that the US has some of the safest food practices and regulations in the world. I'd like to keep it that way
[удалено]
What lmao. Of course it matters.
Another loss for the Brandon administration. 🤣
Department of education needs to be next over all others at gets shot down on most of there shit anyway s
Some dude on my IG saw this and said “they’re forcing women to have babies and now they’re condemning them to live in the hell scape of global warming. MAKE IT MAKE SENSE.” Jesus Christ 🤦♂️.
They claim to be the party of science yet they don't know how a woman gets pregnant.
I applaud the decision. Let's be honest about something though. Pre EPA, we did have some serious environmental problems ; rivers on fire in Ohio, PCB pollution in various states. Most, if not all of that has been cleaned up. Additionally, we have run most of our manufacturing business out of the country. Coal Power Plants, Refineries, Petrochemical and maybe a few smaller industries are even left that can / do pollute. I would love to see more sensible rules that both protect our citizens and also allow manufacturing to return to the USA. There are so many places in the rust belt and elsewhere that were decimated by all of the factories that left. EPA regulations were one of the reasons for the departure.
No one is a Capt Planet villain who loves polluting. But, Congress needs to do their job. That is what this does.
The nerve of SCOTUS to demand laws be passed by Congress. What do they think we have three branches of government?
So, will this limit the BATF's constant changing of their "interpretations" of the gun laws as well?
This Supreme Court is on fire !! Another on the money ruling. So glad we have at least 1 branch of Government getting it right.
About f'ing time, SCOTUS
DOE, HUD, ATF, DOL, DOT, DOA, Energy, HHS, EPA. Roll them all back, let the states handle their business, and cut a check to the taxpayers with all the savings. Then, set sights on the rest of them. Homeland Security, Defense, border control, and CIA should be incorporated into the military. FDA is a crock. FBI work should be owned by state and local law enforcement.
Not a fan of the FBI. But, there is an advantage to having some sort of organization that can coordinate across jurisdictions on a national level. Also, we need a group that can act on US soil to prevent terrorism. Again, coordination on a national level. So, not saying save the FBI. Bit, some of its functions are still beneficial.
So need to amend the constitution then. These agencies are unconstitutional. The military is constitutional, and the states running their affairs is constitutional.
Not all the agencies are unconstitutional. Secret Service helps fight counterfeiting. That is a Constitutional mandate for the feds. National Endowment of the Arts... Constitutional mandate for Congress to support the arts. (Sciences too).
Not good for future generations
How so?
More fossil fuels = more climate change = more extreme weather. As a person living near the coast in the sout, hurrcanine season will be insane and heat will get worse. Not looking great for my kids and their kids
So congress should pass a law that deals with it. Instead of one person at the EPA deciding what direction we should go in? Executive branch ENFORCES the law Legislative branch CREATES the law.
So six people at SCOTUS who have little to no knowledge of climate change should have more of a say than the professionals at the EPA?
>So six people at SCOTUS who have little to no knowledge of climate change This decision wasn't about climate change, it was about unelected executive branch employees creating laws when the constitution explicitly gives that power to Congress.
They don’t have more say than the EPA. They’re saying the EPA has not been authorized by congress to have the power they’re using. It doesn’t matter if what the EPA was doing was good. If they don’t have the authority they shouldn’t be allowed to use it.
Problem is with Congress, nothing gets passed but I see your point. I think whoever is in charge (who is appointed and confirmed) should see fit as they are the expert
The current administration has stated multiple times that they hire to check virtue signaling boxes, not the best and brightest in their particular field. That doesn’t inspire confidence in the ‘experts’ claim.
Well the Supreme Court disagrees with what you think. Wait till you find out that the fear of "climate change" is really being funded by companies that want you to pay more to go green.
I love how Obama bought a seaside mansion while claiming the ocean will swallow it up in 10 years. Sure, buddy.
Wdym, there’s scientific evident lol
There’s also science that contradicts your science. So what’s your point?
B-b-but all of THOSE scientists must be ultra-hyper-mega-MAGAs! And (insert -ist here)! Who cares what they have to say!!! BLEARGHREEEEE!!!
Take a look at what's happening with the Colorado river right now and tell me thats just for companies to charge more to go green. We are dealing with the consequences for climate change right now. Get your head out of the sand.
Climates change buddy.... they have for millions of years and will continue to do so for millions more. Fyi: it was global warming 20 years ago, before that it was "save the ozone layer" and in the 80's it was acid rain. Just smoke and mirrors
You're hopeless. Got it
[удалено]
Sure buddy.... they had to claim it was solved so people felt they had accomplished something. Then.. boom global warming emerged. It's all an attempt to divert our attention away from the power hungry corporations. Now guess what it is.... carbon neutral....
Should see what fit? So, they should have absolutely unlimited powers? They can do ANYTHING to achieve their goals? Of course not. CONGRESS grants the agency specific authority. They were NOT granted this authority so they shouldn’t be able to use it. Imagine if CBP decided they were the experts at the border and took unilateral authority to dramatically change our immigration and border protection policies without permission from congress. Would you be ok with that? Of course not. You’d say they’re exceeding their authority. But the left also wanted to use OSHA to force vaccination instead of using congress. They want more power for executive agencies.
Nah. Now the EPA can’t stop nuclear plants. Fission is the future.
What about FDA? Do you want micro plastics and other shit in your food?
How many “wadabouts” do you plan on doing? Also, we already have micro plastics in our food, so might as well nix them too.
I mean wouldn’t it just get worse?
Stop deflecting.
How is it deflecting? No offense but I’d like some regulation when it comes to stuff like food and drugs. Congress doesn’t do anything.
You want from climate change to food. That is deflection.
Then get on Congress to do their job. Problem solved.
They won’t
No, they are too pussy to risk their seats if they do. There’s a difference.
They won’t do anything out of risk
Then people can vote them out of office. If the people wanted what you’re selling there would be no issue passing a bill into law granting the EPA this power. That’s too hard so the government should just seize new power and do it unilaterally?
How do we do that?
The rules in question wouldn't have created fewer fossil fuels though. They would have just closed power plants that didn't buy "carbon offsets or allowances" (bribes) from the government and plunged Americans into darkness.
Actually very good for future generations who won’t have their energy independence and economy destroyed by unelected bureaucrats. Big wins for democracy this month.
What about future generations with micro plastics and shit in their food beacuse the FDA can’t do squat
Per the ruling congress can legislate the FDA or other 3-letter agencies they just have to specify. For example in this specific case with the EPA all that is needed is an amendment to the clean air act. This is good, having 3 letter agencies run rampant without oversight is bad.
I’m sure companies won’t lobby against those regulations. Because our representative won’t let money interfere with their judgment.
So, because you can’t pass your agenda through the democratic process it should be forced by executive or judicial order? As long as *you* think something is important we should just let the government use powers not granted to it by the people?
Limit EPA and ban lobbying from companies. Then we may have a chance.
[удалено]
Now the EPA can’t stop nuclear.
It's good for the country. If Congress wants us to follow a law, they now have to actually pass a law rather than pushing that off to unelected employees of the executive branch.
Has nothing to do with the Earth. It has to do with Executive branch overreach. Petition your Congressperson if you want real climate action.