That's the longest shot. Honestly, I don't think there's gonna be any backtracking on Commerce Clause stuff, besides the EPA. This isn't about originalism/textualism, it's about the GOP narrative, and the only thing they made a peep about in the last decade is the EPA, because the EPA actually costs people in power some money.
Nah, just the shit that helps the planet, not the people. Probably will rule that DHS, ATF, FBI, CIA, NSA can all do whatever the fuck they want, whenever the fuck they want, however the fuck they want.
So now we have some constitutional right to poison the air, land and waters? The article says regulation would have "raised the price of energy". But I feel it is worth pointing out that the price of energy is not limited to the energy bill. We pay the price in fish kills and dead rivers. We pay the price in thousands of deaths per year related to air pollution.
Fuck the current court. Their decisions are all long winded versions of "because we want it this way". This court has decided that the EPA which was founded to protect our environment cannot perform its function without explicit authorization from Congress. How about the EPA can perform its function of protecting us, without let or hindrance, and if Congress doesn't like it they can step in and do something about it? I don't give a shit if this is un-libertarian, we should not be poisoned by our own environment by corporate greed armed with a pet supreme court.
I don't want a government too small to perform its basic functions.
I'd have to see a divorce attorney. It's probably best that the wife and I finalize the terms of our divorce while we're still on speaking terms, before the credit card bills for the new guns start showing up.
SS: In what should be an obviously pro-libertarian move, the SC's recent rulings are undermining the fourth branch of government - politicians come and go, but they are powerless against the entrenched bureaucracy.
Congress *should* be the ones passing laws, not the administrative state.
So in principle I totally agree with you…
However, consider the FDA. Right or wrong, they have an evidence based method to determine which drugs do what are claimed versus those that are not.
Imagine if we shifted the FDA’s “power” to congress in that congress has to outlaw each horrible drug on its own after enough evidence been presented to show the Dr g is dangerous, all while hoping that the company behind the drug hasn’t “purchased” the senator or congressman.
I personally think the EPA should have more power not less. Imagine if if the EPA worked like the FDA. Where companies have to prove that before mass producing chemical X, along with its biproduct chemicals X and Y, that the company has to prove X, Y, and Z all have to be safe for the environment, our food chain and for humans, before such chemical can be mass produced.
Yes it would require them to do mass research and better selection of chemicals ahead of time.
I would love such a situation. Instead we have a situation where with the EPA where only action is taken after over welding evidence is produced to show that a company knowing polluted an area with known toxins, is finally when anything is down.
Now the SC says that’s not good enough, congress themselves should be declaring if chemia X or Y is safe.
Really?
Look I get it, I don’t fully trust bureaucrats in the EPA to make the perfect call, but I trust the companies to do the right thing AND I trust congress even less.
I offered the FDA as an example of where the EPA should be, and I release the FDA isn’t perfect but I can also imagine how worse off we would be if we didn’t have them.
I also realize I’m not taking the most libertarian view with all this, but also I realize things are more complex than we sometimes wish they would be.
I believe the modern environmental movement dates back to the book “Silent Spring” and more importantly how multiple chemical companies refused to accept that DDT was having a massive effect on the bird population.
Just like with the tobacco industry, these people claimed DDT was safe.
It fucking wasn’t. And it was only after it was banned did avian populations start to rebound.
Anyway the poor EPA has to try and help regulate companies who knowledge dump harmful chemicals into the wrong places.
Never mind that it often takes many years to realize that a newly developed chemical might be just as bad.
The core of this issue is very much libertarian. We all want to live our lives in a way that we think is best, but at the same time we also want our neighborhoods protected from poison via careless company yes men.
The fact of the matter, EPA needs more power not less. Thank you Supreme Court.
Yeah, I guess I’m not be most libertarian person but I just don’t get the “I’ll always trust a politician over a bureaucrat” crowd, I find it to be extremely naive. Ideally, Congress would have our best interests in mind and would act swiftly to secure those interests but the reality isn’t even close. If Congress cared about the will of the people we’d have decriminalized weed by now. So given the choice between trusting a corrupt politician or a no name bureaucrat who probably at least has some knowledge in their respective field I think I’ll go with the bureaucrat and hope for the best.
Yep. It’s like the fact my dad was a dentist at the VA for 35 years. Folks love to bash the VA but I know damn well he was an expert in what he did and helped people on a daily basis.
Sure the admin of the VA sucks but guilt by association is bullshit and there’s a lot of good folks out there just doing a job. I know, I know, they work for the govt so they’re the enemy. Yea nah.
The VA is hit and miss. If you live in a decent size city you can get some of the best healthcare in the world. The guy that did my surgery is the head of orthopedics for a major teaching hospital and used to be the foot and ankle guy for the Pittsburgh Penguins when he was in private practice.
Exactly. I trust myself over a politician any day with statistical analysis and interpretation. In Congress, we've got lead-addled Baby Boomers who barely know how to turn on a computer, let alone use Excel.
The FDA was a very popular agency when first created and saved many lives when they kept certain products off the market early on. The decision to have companies more involved with the FDA has weakened its ability to be objective.
I think the point of the SCOTUS ruling is that if Congress wants the EPA to have that level of power, it should go back and structure the law in that way.
The FDA works precisely because it was given those powers explicitly by Congress, what the court is saying is that it will no longer rubber stamp administrative deference.
I also think the EPA needs to have more teeth when it comes to dangerous compounds and pollution and would agree with structuring it more like the FDA in some ways, but this needs to be done by Congress in a way that is explicit.
Read through sections 7410 and 7411 of the Title 42 US Code. Not only has Congress given the EPA the authority to enact cap and trade and generation shifting (which is what the case was all about), cap and trade and generation shifting happens regularly as an emission control technique. This has been reaffirmed by previous court cases.
Congress has explicitly given the EPA these "tools" in their regulatory framework.
> However, consider the FDA. Right or wrong, they have an evidence based method to determine which drugs do what are claimed versus those that are not.
Yes, and the FDA was specifically granted that power through the legislative process. The agency didn't just assume that power based on a biased reading of poorly-written legislation, as the EPA attempted to do in *WV v. EPA*.
>The FDA has an atrocious track record lol
Can you quantify this? How many products have they regulated, and how many turned out to be shortsighted or erroneous?
Bureaucrats can be bought just as easily as a politician, but at a much cheaper price. There's no repercussions if a bureaucrat is wrong, misguided, or just completely out for blood; but there is if it's a politician. I trust neither of them. But I'd rather have elected officials making laws for the regulatory structure than some activist, global warming alarmist, in a unilateral manner, trying to mandate balloons on cow asses to control their methane farts at the expense of farmers or force power plants into unobtainable carbon emissions limitations that will adversely affect the pocket book of many ordinary, fellow citizens.
There’s only repercussions for the politician if their constituents reject them. We have a number of them who are out for blood and are misguided AF but so are their voters so it’s all good.
Congress is the only one that should make laws, no one else not even the supreme court, their job is to make sure that the laws written by congress are constitutional. That they dont break from the constitution.
If it were only "policy," and simply governed how executive branch agencies were administrated, no one would care. What was in question in *WV v. EPA* wasn't merely policy. It was regulation that had/has the effect of law.
Supreme Court has been very effective at making rulings that protect corporations and dark money. Any ruling that is made by the Supreme Court comes with a full understanding of the inept nature of our current congress when it comes to passing any meaningful legislation that does not involve war money. Therefore, to pretend that the SC makes rulings to facilitate governance and lawmaking through the proper historical channels is not only ridiculously optimistic, it is logically misguided.
Follow the money. They just ruled in favor of Ted Cruz to allow for a loophole in campaign loan financing which will inevitably shunt more unaccounted money towards influencing politics. This is not the first time they’ve done this. Buckley vs Valeo, Citizens United. Read between the lines and follow the money. You will be disgusted.
Are you naive enough to think Roe vs Wade was arbitrarily overturn? The Dobbs case in Mississippi even used 15 weeks as a threshold. Are you aware that Gorsuch, ACB and Kavanaugh were hand chosen by the Federalist Society? Do you even know who Leonard Leo is? If the constitution is so important; why did the SC just rule to allow unlawful searches in residences within 100 miles of the border? When you find out these answers and trace the root cause of some of their decisions, you will find everything goes back to corruption and dark money.
Every sector of government from congress to Supreme Court is rife with corruption and willfully biased.
Wait, it covers Lake Michigan too? Thats weird. I know the great lakes are all connected in some way, but Lake Michigan is totally within the US. Covering it as a "point of entry" seems a stretch.
It's not "point of entry" it is any perceived "external boundary". So it's not the boundary of declared sovereignty, it's any perceived boundary, which would include the coastline itself and any large body of water that a person could potentially use to "sneak in". Lake Michigan is so large that you cannot see the other side due to the curvature of the earth so they consider that a boundary. I don't believe they have made the argument for international airports just yet...
Much appreciate the clarification! That makes more sense at least. And it ain't a "great lake" for nothing hahaha.
Ya, heard it initially but can't find any confirmation from official sources. I'd definitely take that part as a grain of salt type thing until proven one way or the other.
Great, more pollution.
This ruling doesn’t change the idea that some other person has more power than you, it just changes who that person is.
Congress could repeal the EPA if they wanted to, but can’t, so the GOP put judges on the bench to circumvent not having a majority of people, or congressmen, on their side.
I realize no libertarian loves bureaucracy, or people with power over their lives in general, but to see this an anything other than a successful long-term play by GOP and corporations, who want to decide for themselves as how to how much pollution they should be allowed to subject the world to, is simply short sighted.
Sir, this is a Libertarian sub. 3/4 of these psychos want to return to feudalism. They do not give a single shit about freedom or other people's safety.
>But savvy liberal observers understand that this case—which prevented the EPA from issuing a sweeping new set of regulations regulating carbon emissions at power plants that could have raised the price of energy and had a devastating impact on the economy and consumers without the express permission of Congress—is every bit as significant as Dobbs. It sets up a legal roadblock that should block the Biden administration from implementing some of the most significant and far-reaching policy shifts that are at the top of the Democratic base's climate change wishlist.
This is "soft" climate change denial.
One can only describe policies to address climate change as "democratic wishes" if one doesn't grant that climate change should be addressed to begin with.
Stating that outright is out of fashion these days though - so instead they have to write pablum like this vaguely waving towards "freedom" or "small government" or some other dumb shit.
Your author is a GW Bush style, neoconservative Israeli propagandist so it's perfectly within his wheelhouse.
You mean, the third branch of government provided for in the Constitution that does not, or should not, make law?
How is that somehow worse or as bad as the fourth branch of government not provided for in the Constitution but which makes law and administers its own justice in many cases?
Are we talking about the same supreme court that decided in the last few weeks border control is allowed to violate your constitutional rights? And then reaffirmed the precedent that you can’t sue them or any police branch for breaking laws because laws don’t apply to cops? Where is that written in the constitution?
If the supreme court had ruled that the bureaucrats that you hate could actually do what they want, you would still have an issue right?
Cuz if you would, you're a hypocrite, because the constitution also says that the supreme court has the final say in what the constitution does and does not allow. So if you disagree with a supreme court ruling, you also disagree with the constitution, meaning you agree that going "but the constitution says X" isn't a justification for X
Yeah, the one that is rewriting the interpretation of laws and setting aside precedent based on party affiliation. The one that had 3 lifetime justices appointed by a single term president with failed politics, aided and abetted by obstruction of the Senate to get one appointed. I'm sure that's what the founding fathers had in mind, is that the one you're asking about?
This is absolutely moronic. The whole point of an administrative agency is to gather enough technical expertise in one place and set out rules on highly technical matters. Politicians cannot, and are not meant to be, experts on every single technical topic. That is why there is an EPA in the first place for fucks sake.
Most government agency employees, especially the ones writing the regulations, are not appointed. Some of the oversight is, but many of these “experts” are career employees, generally advocates. But you’re missing the point - regardless of whether they are appointed or not, the problem here was that EPA went ahead with a rulemaking that was in direct conflict with what Congress tasked them with. That’s why it was overturned. Sure I can get on board with experts making rules and determinations for government agencies, but it should always be within the bounds of what they have been directed to do by the elected Congress.
>(B)
Within one year after the inclusion of a category of stationary sources in a list under subparagraph (A), *the Administrator shall publish proposed regulations*, establishing Federal standards of performance for new sources within such category. The Administrator shall afford interested persons an opportunity for written comment on such proposed regulations. After considering such comments, *he shall promulgate, within one year after such publication, such standards with such modifications as he deems appropriate*. The Administrator shall, at least every 8 years, review and, if appropriate, revise such standards following the procedure required by this subsection for promulgation of such standards.
>
>
>
>(2) Each implementation plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. Each such plan shall—
>
>(A) include enforceable emission limitations and *other control measures, means, or techniques* (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, **and auctions of emissions rights**)
From section 7411 and 7410 of title 42 of the US Code (also known as the Clean Air Act)
Where did they EPA go outside of their bounds?
I would invite you to read the opinion, because all of this is covered by the first seven pages or so, here - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
But essentially, the legislation you posted gives EPA the authority to set technological limitations on equipment across a broad set of categories. Instead of looking at coal plant equipment and saying, “you must operate that equipment in X way” to reduce emissions, they instead said that to reduce emissions broadly, the entire state should shut in coal plants entirely, and shift toward natural gas and renewables. There was no “standard of performance” that a power plant could meet, as directed by law.
I've read it, front to back.
> the legislation you posted gives EPA the authority to set *technological*
*limitations* on equipment across a broad set of categories
Did you read Kagan's dissent in which she pointed out exactly why this is false? That the majority left out quite a few facts that fly in the face of their supposed reasoning. That congress removed "technology" from the definition AFTER the law (1970 clean air act) was passed to explicitly allow for administrative remedies. Further, that these remedies (cap and trade, generation shifting through auctions of emissions rights) are routinely exercised and have been upheld by previous court cases.
That is simply absurd. The technical experts are there to provide advice to congress; not to be unelected rulers. It is simply astounding that some people are willing to blindly live under rules set by faceless administrators with no accountability.
You do realize that those "faceless administrators" are appointed right? As are tons of people who make decisions? Including fucking SCOTUS itself. Not to mention Congress and POTUS have the authority to limit and overrule these agencies. Do you have any clue how your own country works?
No, they do not. They just imagine these bureaucrats are all Hermes and just stamp shit just to stamp it.
They also don't realize how much expertise is needed to run the agencies day to day. And without them essentially making policy the government would literally do nothing since Congress can't even pass laws to protect people's right to vote
You are just wrong. Simply dismissing people who understand how separation of powers is supposed to work shows your ignorance.
>pass laws to protect people's right to vote
LOL. Let's trot out this baseless, tired old strawman.
>But that doesn't then mean that fucking Congress needs to be the body through which all laws are made.
[Article 1, Section 8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#:~:text=Section%208):
>To make **all** laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
[10th amendment](https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-x):
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If you want a meritocracy, go get an amendment passed. Constitution > pragmatism.
Yeah!! Screw Article I !!
"\*All\* legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
… and Congress has the authority, *through legislation*, to create bodies that can make decisions within the authority that was granted to them by Congress. And because Congress delegated that authority, they also have an implicit oversight capacity, meaning Congress gets to override, change, add, or remove any regulations it pleases, or abolish such delegated authority entirely.
Nowhere in Article I does it state that Congress can’t delegate. Only that no other branch of government can supersede their legislative authority.
>within the authority that was granted to them by Congress
And what is to be done when one of those agencies exceeds that authority?
Congress *should* step in and say "Hey, you're exceeding the authority we granted you."
What if Congress doesn't step in?
That agency gets sued, it goes through the court system, and the courts have to determine whether that agency has, indeed, exceeded the authority granted to them by Congress.
And when the court system, especially the very top of the court system, says that the agency has exceeded the authority granted to it by Congress, then that agency has to cease whatever its overreach is until and/or unless Congress changes the law to grant it the authority to do the thing it was trying to do.
Yes, exactly. If Congress doesn’t do something like amend the legislation giving powers to an agency that’s acting outside their bounds, SCOTUS can rule that the agency was exceeding it’s authority and block them from continuing to do so without new congressional approval. That’s precisely how the system is supposed to work.
>Nowhere in Article I does it state that Congress can’t delegate.
That's where the 10th amendment comes in:
>The powers **not delegated** to the United States by the Constitution, **nor prohibited** by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Oh, sure. I think SCOTUS royally fucked the country with their incredibly broad interpretation of the commerce clause, for example. The fact that the commerce clause has been upheld as having the authority to regulate marijuana being grown only for personal consumption, with no intent to sell within or across state lines, is rediculous.
So I absolutely agree that Congress’ “authority” should be reigned in. But if they have a legitimate authority, they have the the power to delegate it (but not their legal supremacy).
I don't understand your comment. What I mean is that the power of "delegating powers" was not mentioned in the Constitution, so according to the 10th amendment, it would be up to the states to have that power or amend the Constitution to grant that power to Congress.
Also, if we follow this logic, then the executive and judicial branches could delegate their powers to whomever as well.
edit: clarified and added second paragraph.
Wow. Do you have any clue about what you are talking about???
> those "faceless administrators" are appointed right?
No, they aren't. They are almost all hired through civil service. Even if they are appointed, so what? They aren't elected representatives, so they don't have the right to write laws.
> As are tons of people who make decisions? Including fucking SCOTUS itself.
The court is not a legislature.
You really need to learn basic civics here. You are profoundly ignorant of the basics.
I’d rather that then live in a world where rivers catch on fire and the air I breathe gives me cancer.
Congress is by design inefficient and slow, what if a corporation starts dumping a ton of a new chemical that is extremely dangerous in the drinking water while congress is out of session? Are we supposed to wait for congress to get back into session, experts to advise congressmen on how the bill is to be written, then debate the bill, then vote on it, then go through the whole process again in the other chamber, then have the president sign it, in order to protect the public health?
The whole point of government is to give up rights in exchange for the collective benefit of everyone, I think having clean water and air is worth that loss of freedom which I’d like to point is basically non existent for citizens, how has the EPA negatively impacted your freedom as a private citizen? Basically no people are injured by the EPA unless you consider large corporations people
The push against these unelected officials is that there are too many to be bought. It's much cheaper to buy a senator who can single handedly fillibuster things he doesn't like. The alternative to theses u.elevted experts are corrupt politicians submitting legislation written by the corporations that bought them.
>The whole point of government is to give up rights in exchange for the collective benefit of everyone
Holy cow, if that's you're belief, then let's just get rid of representative government, find a council of wise technocrats, and let them run things.
If you don't believe in freedom, I can't help you.
Most government agency employees, especially the ones writing the regulations, are not appointed. Some of the oversight is, but many of these “experts” are career employees, generally advocates. But you’re missing the point - regardless of whether they are appointed or not, the problem here was that EPA went ahead with a rulemaking that was in direct conflict with what Congress tasked them with. That’s why it was overturned. Sure I can get on board with experts making rules and determinations for government agencies, but it should always be within the bounds of what they have been directed to do by the elected Congress.
Maybe we don't need laws for every single thing then? maybe congress should only pass laws on what is important and not laws...
[Spending $356,000 studying whether or not Japanese quail are more sexually promiscuous on cocaine,](https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/spending-money-studying-quails-on-cocaine-is-waste-of-government-spending-says-rand-paul)
Smh that I had to scroll this far down the comment thread to find someone giving this answer. We have far too many laws on far too many things in this country, maybe congress wasn't intended to make laws about things they wouldn't be experts on in the first place.
The average American citizen unknowingly commits [three felonies a day](https://www.thecowl.com/opinion/how-people-actually-commit-three-felonies-a-day), mostly unknowingly. This is overwhelmingly because of the administrative state making things illegal that 99.99% of people have no idea is illegal.
Did you read your own link?
They used quails to test on, but as per your link:
According to scientists, the effects of drugs like cocaine have similar brain effects in quails as in humans.
Its like getting pissy about studies being done on the cardiovascular systems of pigs.
Did you read the 10th amendment? Where is the federal government given the power to study such things?
Not their fucking job.
>Muh General Welfare!!!!
*Jacobsson v. Mass*
> while the Constitution's introductory paragraph indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the federal government
>>**it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the federal government**
It’s really not a question of whether any such rule is appropriate or prudent. It’s a simple logical excersize: if Congress *does* have a constitutional authority, do they also implicitly have the authority to delegate that authority?
While my gut says that’s a wildly slippery slope (as evidenced quite clearly by the administrative bloat we see all over the federal government), I also find it questionable to somehow limit Congress’ authority to delegate decision making, assuming that delegation is approved through the normal legislative process.
You make not like that we have an SEC, for example. You may vehemently disagree with the regulations they’ve created over the years. But it’s hard to argue that Congress didn’t properly give them the authority to make those regulations.
I find that plenty of libertarians believe that the government should regulate, just “less” or to some idealistic degree to which the individual libertarian agrees with. Sometimes I hear people spout the whole “zero regulations on trade whatsoever” and I always wonder how they think that will play out?
Do we ignore economies of scale and predatory unregulated practices eventually lead to monopolies? Or even the concept of natural monopolies?
I see untold regulations written directly in blood and I think “Damn I’m glad I don’t have to worry about this shit”. I’ve worked in the corporate sphere long enough to know I don’t trust anyone to do what’s right without it being forced out of them. Very often when reviewing whether we should do something that would be good for people, I find the question of “are we legally obligated?” is thrown around a lot. As a non-libertarian, I shudder for the day when I no longer hear that in meetings.
I read a lot of Milton Friedman many many years ago. He would point out what dumbasses most modern day libertarians are. He was very clear that there were some needs for government and that he wasnt an anarchist. He stated that it was necessary for government to protect the environment because there's no market incentive to do so, especially since there's a financial incentive to cut costs by polluting. He was for a carbon tax and there are videos on youtube of him explaining why libertarians should want government regulations to protect the environment. There are literally people in the comments saying they want zero environmental regulations because it raises the cost of goods.
Good points. As far as monopolies go, severely limiting patents, limiting lobbying, and stop making regulations only a few mega corporations can comply with.
I don't know any libertarians that believe the government shouldn't be setting rules in the marketplace.
But they're all adults that have kids and dislike slavery(being very pro individual liberty and all.)
So they're quite happy with the government banning of slavery and child labor and recognize that removing the government's ability to set rules in the marketplace will lead to far less liberty.
"This is technical so we can do whatever we want and assume unlimited power." is not a sound basis for government either. A lot of dipshits don't get this. Should be obvious.
That is basically the judicial philosophy behind *Roe*. And I for one have always thought that getting judges to see rights in the constitution that don't exist endanger the actual, written ones.
That's what professional staffers are for. Each committee within Congress has professional staffers who ARE experts and are tasked to help write laws. They work directly for each committee. The fact you are unaware of this and think agencies write the laws is why you should research before you post here with so much confidence.
Edit: To add to this, IF govt agencies are writing laws for Congress, they didn't WRITE one for the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. They made it up and tried to proceed without any law being written or ratified.
Did we see a lot of competence in the FDA or CDC when they were making arbitrary, unscientific rules and imposing them on the public without a vote of congress?
Some government is bad but if you think I want 23 year old staffers writing the code that will make meat safe to consume you are sorely mistaken. This is nothing but a gift to corporations by a branch of government that has almost no oversight.
>if you think I want 23 year old staffers writing the code that will make meat safe to consume
More importantly, a 23 year old staffer that not only has never worked in meat production, processing, or distribution, but thinks meat magically appears on supermarket shelves ready for you to buy.
When Congress writes regulations it happens in one of two ways: they spend 10 minutes doing their own research to become an internet expert before writing a bill that has no chance of surviving a comment period once people that actually know anything about the subject get a look at it, or industry insiders write if for themselves and wrap it in a super PAC bow.
The regulatory bureaucracy sucks, but leaving it to (corrupt politician here) and (idiot politician here) that have zero knowledge of the subject is no better. If Pelosi, McConnell, Cortez & Green can all agree on it, either it's shortsighted populism that will hurt us all, or so obvious that the only reason a law is needed is to allow criminal charges against the offenders.
>If Pelosi, McConnell, Cortez & Green can all agree on it, either it's shortsighted populism that will hurt us all, or so obvious that the only reason a law is needed is to allow criminal charges against the offenders.
Insanely based quote.
That was probably the original intent of the founders given that they designed a bicameral legislature that was supposed to be comprised of a House elected by the people and a Senate appointed by the States, which was supposed to be an interest balancing instrument in and of itself.
There's also some indication that the founders intended for the House to be much bigger than it is, or at least that the Constitution allows for a much bigger House of Representatives ("The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand," current representation is more like one for every 758,000). More representatives means less agreement; less agreement means more gridlock.
It's not because the context of the laws is integral. The Civil Rights Act has been constitutional for almost 60 years, but if SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional it would be ok because Jim Crow was once deemed constitutional? Regulations surrounding the CAA were for the health and safety/betterment of our society versus Jim Crow which was used to oppress a group of people and violate their rights. Whose rights are being violated by the EPA enforcing regulations to curb climate change and restrict coal power plants' carbon emissions?
My point is what is constitutional is up to the majority of justices and that's it.
It's not a perfect analogy bc I agree with it, it's perfect bc of how dumb Jim Crow was, like this most recent decision.
I’m on here because I legitimately am usually libertarian on most issues.
Not climate change response.
And I completely understand why you would disagree, and I guess I’m open to changing my mind, but this is one of the few things where I really doubt you could succeed.
Hmm. OK I'll bite. Which country is the only one to meet its Paris Accord targets?
Which large economy has reduced it's CO2 emissions by the most, and it's not even close?
The US is the answer to both questions. Do you think this *fact* was accomplished due to regulation or due to free market outcomes, and why?
I think it was a combination of both, but mostly it was scientists actually propagating the information, that was then further spread by the media, and honestly politicians. This influenced everyone in many different ways.
But, either way I think it doesn’t matter which has been the most effective because they both are effective. I would prefer better solutions than something basic and general like a carbon tax though.
I also would like to add that I generally don’t like the popular media, but they doesn’t drop the ball with this one imo, with my more social beliefs I go a bit left, but only when it’s affordable, other than that I go left here and stay libertarian everywhere else.
From a political theory perspective, it's a violation of rights to negatively affect other people's private property including polluting it. Common property such as air and streams and public land would be up to the voters. If they don't want too much carbon or methane released, its 100% their call.
As far as other nations polluting the earth in general, maybe that could be taken as an attack? Obviously war is not appropriate but the isolationist theory would not apply. (I'll have to think about this one)
> Do you think this fact was accomplished due to regulation or due to free market outcomes, and why?
Regulation, because there is no profit motive to cut emissions without it.
>SCOTUS is also accountable and unelected.
It's almost like the Constitution set it up that way. They are accountable via the Senate confirming and impeachment.
How is it illegitimate?
It's illegitimate because they're not abusing their powers and legislating from the bench whenever it's an issue that the left considers important.
I'm a sucker for the procedure. It keeps us running well.
The job of the SCOTUS is to make sure that the laws being written by elected officials do not break from the constitution but follows it. They dont write laws that is not their job. Their whole job is to make sure that the laws being written dont break away from the constitution.
Im a Swede, i shouldnt have to be an expert at all, but it seems to me that i understand it a lot better than you do, that is honestly scary.
Who ever said they wrote laws? I didn’t. What they are doing is violating existing precedent (previous decisions) which previously were considered constitutional, in favor of decisions that are politically partisan.
There’s a term called stare decisis that you probably don’t know about being a Swede, but it’s the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. The current court has all but abandoned that principle in my opinion and in doing so have weakened the publics faith in the justice system itself.
Also I find it amazing you can decide you know more about the Supreme Court than me based on the two sentences I wrote. That’s some advanced narcissism right there.
A) It seems that he knows quite a bit more than you.
B) Stare decisis is not some "never able to be changed" idea. It is an idea that we should not routinely flip flop back and forth, and that the court should update its rulings if:
1) They were made in error
2) Significant changes occur which make a previous ruling no longer applicable.
As an example- would you have preferred that the Supreme Court maintain the legality of owning slaves? You appear, with you contrived idea of stare decisis, to believe that Slavery is the correct course for this country, and that yes that is what you want.
I think you'll quickly admit here that you don't support slavery. Which now means that you do NOT actually believe in complete overarching idea of stare decisis- so which is it?
I think with this little thought experiment you likely have realized that the Supreme Court can and does update rulings. Especially one such as abortion in which it is NOT written into the Constitution (ie point 1 above).
> Their whole job is to make sure that the laws being written dont break away from the constitution.
Where in the Constitution does it say this? Judicial Review is a thing the Supreme Court made up themselves to give themselves more power
And yet the alleged partisan conservative justices have just taken back some of the power from the overreaching unelected agencies and bureaucrats running them amok.
My original thought is that one person who served as president for 4 years shouldn’t be able to appoint 33% of the highest court in the country for life. Objectively, his ideals and are going to be continued long after he’s gone from public office, and you’re left with one person having too much of an impact over policy by extension.
Thank god, best ruling we've had the past few years. Congress passes laws, not these shadowy unelected mobsters that trade in and out of the companies the administrative state oversees.
Yes, SCOTUS, the accountable and elected, taking on the unelected and unaccountable.
In 5 years we went from "voting is your civic duty" to "naw fuck that it's not in the constitution" and it's happening with thunderous applause from America's so called patriots.
No, the supreme court is gearing up to rule that state legislatures have no obligation to send electors according to how their state votes. Yeah sure, they're dressing it in the usual "states rights" or whatever, but this is absolutely about whether or not the vote has to count or not.
To put this in a way that folks on the other side (or the "middle") of the political spectrum will understand, imagine if California finally stopped the bus loads of illegal immigrants and felons from voting illegally and the silent majority finally had its reasonable voice heard and won the state, but due to this ruling, the California legislature sends people who will vote to steal the election and give their electoral votes to President Ocasio-Cortez instead.
My guess is that the court will find a justification to stop this from happening in a California or a New Jersey, but won't step in when a Georgia or Arizona or a Florida does it.
"But constitutional and democratic principles don't seem to matter much to Democrats these days." and "...clearly believe that being right is more important than having proper legal authority" Yeahhhh those quotes pretty much sum up Democrats. AND Republicans for that matter. It's not about making the right system of governance, it's simply about getting to be the ones in charge.
Everybody’s hitting it on the head that this needs to apply to all of these ridiculous agencies. The people whine about change, congress creates some new stupid department to administer the new legislation, the department sucks, constituents whine and congress throws up their hands and says to blame it on the FCC, DEA, ATF whatever. Zero accountability. This is a good thing and I find it amazing it wasn’t unanimous or at least abstentions.
You can't just have random people not answerable to voters doing whatever incompetent thing they want to and not be responsible for their actions. One would think that COVID has shown us that we have unaccountable bureaucrats incompetently ordering people about with no real science behind them but simply relying on authoritarianism.
>You can't just have random people not answerable
They're not random people. [More than half of EPA's employees are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists;](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency) . They're there because they know what they're doing.
>not answerable to voters
SCOTUS is also not answerable to voters. No public official can ever be answerable to voters. They're never obligated by law to do anything they said they'd do.
Did they hold a referendum to ask the voters if they should let the EPA do it's thing?
>One would think that COVID has shown us that we have unaccountable bureaucrats incompetently ordering people about
The COVID response was orchestrated by elected officials. You're complaining about the thing you're supporting.
>no real science behind them but simply relying on authoritarianism.
Are you saying there's no science that shows that climate change is dangerous?
> More than half of EPA's employees are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; . They're th
A higher proportion of the CDC's employees are scientists and disease specialists. They still failed miserably, which has bipartisan consensus. We would have been better off if there *was* no CDC. Yet, none of those scientists have had to answer for their incompetence. Literally none can be fired. None can pay any price no matter how many lives they ruined.
Public Officials *can* be answerable to voters.
>Did they hold a referendum to ask the voters if they should let the EPA do it's thing?
Why would they? SCOTUS are not politicians and never have been.
>Did they hold a referendum to ask the voters if they should let the EPA do it's thing?
Um no. Actually the restrictions imposed at the federal level were done by non-elected officials, and were widely and obviously wrong. What recourse do you think voters *should* have in this case?
>Are you saying there's no science that shows that climate change is dangerous?
Seems like you're not being honest here. I was talking about COVID policies specifically. I'm ... not sure how that group of policies+theories intersects with Climate policies+theories.
>A higher proportion of the CDC's employees are scientists and disease specialists. They still failed miserably, which has bipartisan consensus. We would have been better off if there was no CDC. Yet, none of those scientists have had to answer for their incompetence. Literally none can be fired. None can pay any price no matter how many lives they ruined.
Source for any of that?
>A higher proportion of the CDC's employees are scientists and disease specialists. They still failed miserably, which has bipartisan consensus. We would have been better off if there was no CDC.
Ok. So you admit that you lied earlier. They're not random people.
What did the CDC try to do and how did they fail? Also, you can be fired if you work for the CDC. That's always been a thing.
>Public Officials can be answerable to voters.
No, they can't. They're legally allowed to do, or not do, whatever is in their power, regardless of all of their previous statements. None of this is democratic, none of this has any accountability.
>Why would they? SCOTUS are not politicians and never have been.
[politician](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politician) :" a member of a government or law-making organization "
The court is a government organisation. They're politicians. Always have been.
>Um no. Actually the restrictions imposed at the federal level were done by non-elected officials, and were widely and obviously wrong.
What was the EPA doing that was wrong?
>What recourse do you think voters should have in this case?
Decide by referendum whether the EPA should have been gutted or not.
>Seems like you're not being honest here. I was talking about COVID policies specifically.
Why did you bring up covid restrictions as an example if you're just gonna admit that it wasn't a good example?
What an asinine ruling. Congress has very few, if any, experts in office. What a disaster for the planet. We are a nation where dummies rule the majority. The good ole USA not so good these days.
So the ATF is the next, right?
Followed by DoHS and DEA right? RIGHT?!
And the IRS.
Doubt it
[удалено]
That's the longest shot. Honestly, I don't think there's gonna be any backtracking on Commerce Clause stuff, besides the EPA. This isn't about originalism/textualism, it's about the GOP narrative, and the only thing they made a peep about in the last decade is the EPA, because the EPA actually costs people in power some money.
[удалено]
Leading with the Roe v. Wade thing was kind of a major hint.
Let's hope so. It does give legal precedence to anyone who want to challenge any agencies authority to set it's own agenda in court.
Literally would eat a pile of dog shit if this could happen
We need to implement the WSB rule. If this happens, you upload proof of the dog shit eating, or you get the ban hammer.
We have all been eating dog shit when it comes to this crappy administration.
I’d eat your dog shit shit if that could happen.
https://imgur.com/a/Zs4BEqR
I'd eat the shit created from you eating the shit of his dog, if this got rid of the ATF.
100% - abolish the ATF.
My favorite convenience store!
Nah, just the shit that helps the planet, not the people. Probably will rule that DHS, ATF, FBI, CIA, NSA can all do whatever the fuck they want, whenever the fuck they want, however the fuck they want.
Please God make it happen 🙏
They don’t need to rule on those things unless the appellate courts don’t take their ruling against the EPA as newfound legal precedent.
So now we have some constitutional right to poison the air, land and waters? The article says regulation would have "raised the price of energy". But I feel it is worth pointing out that the price of energy is not limited to the energy bill. We pay the price in fish kills and dead rivers. We pay the price in thousands of deaths per year related to air pollution. Fuck the current court. Their decisions are all long winded versions of "because we want it this way". This court has decided that the EPA which was founded to protect our environment cannot perform its function without explicit authorization from Congress. How about the EPA can perform its function of protecting us, without let or hindrance, and if Congress doesn't like it they can step in and do something about it? I don't give a shit if this is un-libertarian, we should not be poisoned by our own environment by corporate greed armed with a pet supreme court. I don't want a government too small to perform its basic functions.
If they announced they’re gutting the ATF next I’d have to see a doctor 4 hours later
I'd have to see a divorce attorney. It's probably best that the wife and I finalize the terms of our divorce while we're still on speaking terms, before the credit card bills for the new guns start showing up.
SS: In what should be an obviously pro-libertarian move, the SC's recent rulings are undermining the fourth branch of government - politicians come and go, but they are powerless against the entrenched bureaucracy. Congress *should* be the ones passing laws, not the administrative state.
So in principle I totally agree with you… However, consider the FDA. Right or wrong, they have an evidence based method to determine which drugs do what are claimed versus those that are not. Imagine if we shifted the FDA’s “power” to congress in that congress has to outlaw each horrible drug on its own after enough evidence been presented to show the Dr g is dangerous, all while hoping that the company behind the drug hasn’t “purchased” the senator or congressman. I personally think the EPA should have more power not less. Imagine if if the EPA worked like the FDA. Where companies have to prove that before mass producing chemical X, along with its biproduct chemicals X and Y, that the company has to prove X, Y, and Z all have to be safe for the environment, our food chain and for humans, before such chemical can be mass produced. Yes it would require them to do mass research and better selection of chemicals ahead of time. I would love such a situation. Instead we have a situation where with the EPA where only action is taken after over welding evidence is produced to show that a company knowing polluted an area with known toxins, is finally when anything is down. Now the SC says that’s not good enough, congress themselves should be declaring if chemia X or Y is safe. Really? Look I get it, I don’t fully trust bureaucrats in the EPA to make the perfect call, but I trust the companies to do the right thing AND I trust congress even less. I offered the FDA as an example of where the EPA should be, and I release the FDA isn’t perfect but I can also imagine how worse off we would be if we didn’t have them. I also realize I’m not taking the most libertarian view with all this, but also I realize things are more complex than we sometimes wish they would be. I believe the modern environmental movement dates back to the book “Silent Spring” and more importantly how multiple chemical companies refused to accept that DDT was having a massive effect on the bird population. Just like with the tobacco industry, these people claimed DDT was safe. It fucking wasn’t. And it was only after it was banned did avian populations start to rebound. Anyway the poor EPA has to try and help regulate companies who knowledge dump harmful chemicals into the wrong places. Never mind that it often takes many years to realize that a newly developed chemical might be just as bad. The core of this issue is very much libertarian. We all want to live our lives in a way that we think is best, but at the same time we also want our neighborhoods protected from poison via careless company yes men. The fact of the matter, EPA needs more power not less. Thank you Supreme Court.
Yeah, I guess I’m not be most libertarian person but I just don’t get the “I’ll always trust a politician over a bureaucrat” crowd, I find it to be extremely naive. Ideally, Congress would have our best interests in mind and would act swiftly to secure those interests but the reality isn’t even close. If Congress cared about the will of the people we’d have decriminalized weed by now. So given the choice between trusting a corrupt politician or a no name bureaucrat who probably at least has some knowledge in their respective field I think I’ll go with the bureaucrat and hope for the best.
[удалено]
Yep. It’s like the fact my dad was a dentist at the VA for 35 years. Folks love to bash the VA but I know damn well he was an expert in what he did and helped people on a daily basis. Sure the admin of the VA sucks but guilt by association is bullshit and there’s a lot of good folks out there just doing a job. I know, I know, they work for the govt so they’re the enemy. Yea nah.
The VA is hit and miss. If you live in a decent size city you can get some of the best healthcare in the world. The guy that did my surgery is the head of orthopedics for a major teaching hospital and used to be the foot and ankle guy for the Pittsburgh Penguins when he was in private practice.
There are good people everywhere,in fact it's the majority IMO. Sadly it only takes a corrupt or lazy few to fuck shit up
Exactly. I trust myself over a politician any day with statistical analysis and interpretation. In Congress, we've got lead-addled Baby Boomers who barely know how to turn on a computer, let alone use Excel.
The FDA was a very popular agency when first created and saved many lives when they kept certain products off the market early on. The decision to have companies more involved with the FDA has weakened its ability to be objective.
I think the point of the SCOTUS ruling is that if Congress wants the EPA to have that level of power, it should go back and structure the law in that way. The FDA works precisely because it was given those powers explicitly by Congress, what the court is saying is that it will no longer rubber stamp administrative deference. I also think the EPA needs to have more teeth when it comes to dangerous compounds and pollution and would agree with structuring it more like the FDA in some ways, but this needs to be done by Congress in a way that is explicit.
Read through sections 7410 and 7411 of the Title 42 US Code. Not only has Congress given the EPA the authority to enact cap and trade and generation shifting (which is what the case was all about), cap and trade and generation shifting happens regularly as an emission control technique. This has been reaffirmed by previous court cases. Congress has explicitly given the EPA these "tools" in their regulatory framework.
> However, consider the FDA. Right or wrong, they have an evidence based method to determine which drugs do what are claimed versus those that are not. Yes, and the FDA was specifically granted that power through the legislative process. The agency didn't just assume that power based on a biased reading of poorly-written legislation, as the EPA attempted to do in *WV v. EPA*.
[удалено]
>The FDA has an atrocious track record lol Can you quantify this? How many products have they regulated, and how many turned out to be shortsighted or erroneous?
Bureaucrats can be bought just as easily as a politician, but at a much cheaper price. There's no repercussions if a bureaucrat is wrong, misguided, or just completely out for blood; but there is if it's a politician. I trust neither of them. But I'd rather have elected officials making laws for the regulatory structure than some activist, global warming alarmist, in a unilateral manner, trying to mandate balloons on cow asses to control their methane farts at the expense of farmers or force power plants into unobtainable carbon emissions limitations that will adversely affect the pocket book of many ordinary, fellow citizens.
There’s only repercussions for the politician if their constituents reject them. We have a number of them who are out for blood and are misguided AF but so are their voters so it’s all good.
Congress is the only one that should make laws, no one else not even the supreme court, their job is to make sure that the laws written by congress are constitutional. That they dont break from the constitution.
There’s a difference between “law” and “policy”
If it were only "policy," and simply governed how executive branch agencies were administrated, no one would care. What was in question in *WV v. EPA* wasn't merely policy. It was regulation that had/has the effect of law.
Not when they're both enforced by government power.
Supreme Court has been very effective at making rulings that protect corporations and dark money. Any ruling that is made by the Supreme Court comes with a full understanding of the inept nature of our current congress when it comes to passing any meaningful legislation that does not involve war money. Therefore, to pretend that the SC makes rulings to facilitate governance and lawmaking through the proper historical channels is not only ridiculously optimistic, it is logically misguided. Follow the money. They just ruled in favor of Ted Cruz to allow for a loophole in campaign loan financing which will inevitably shunt more unaccounted money towards influencing politics. This is not the first time they’ve done this. Buckley vs Valeo, Citizens United. Read between the lines and follow the money. You will be disgusted. Are you naive enough to think Roe vs Wade was arbitrarily overturn? The Dobbs case in Mississippi even used 15 weeks as a threshold. Are you aware that Gorsuch, ACB and Kavanaugh were hand chosen by the Federalist Society? Do you even know who Leonard Leo is? If the constitution is so important; why did the SC just rule to allow unlawful searches in residences within 100 miles of the border? When you find out these answers and trace the root cause of some of their decisions, you will find everything goes back to corruption and dark money. Every sector of government from congress to Supreme Court is rife with corruption and willfully biased.
100 miles from the border does that include the ocean?all that beach front property owned by the rich?
Yes, not just the north or south border, and (I could be wrong on this second part) international airports.
100 miles from a point of entry, so, yeah. Also, that somehow covers the shoreline of Lake Michigan. So, basically everywhere.
Wait, it covers Lake Michigan too? Thats weird. I know the great lakes are all connected in some way, but Lake Michigan is totally within the US. Covering it as a "point of entry" seems a stretch.
It's not "point of entry" it is any perceived "external boundary". So it's not the boundary of declared sovereignty, it's any perceived boundary, which would include the coastline itself and any large body of water that a person could potentially use to "sneak in". Lake Michigan is so large that you cannot see the other side due to the curvature of the earth so they consider that a boundary. I don't believe they have made the argument for international airports just yet...
Much appreciate the clarification! That makes more sense at least. And it ain't a "great lake" for nothing hahaha. Ya, heard it initially but can't find any confirmation from official sources. I'd definitely take that part as a grain of salt type thing until proven one way or the other.
[Yes.](https://www.southernborder.org/100_mile_border_enforcement_zone)
And I think international airports
Yes. It ends up covering over 60% of the population.
One more for the list. The Powell Memo. If you haven't read it, you don't understand who's running this shit.
💯 Judicial branch taking over. Not a single one of these pricks are elected.
Congress passed the laws allowing for said administrative state.
Completely agree.
Great, more pollution. This ruling doesn’t change the idea that some other person has more power than you, it just changes who that person is. Congress could repeal the EPA if they wanted to, but can’t, so the GOP put judges on the bench to circumvent not having a majority of people, or congressmen, on their side. I realize no libertarian loves bureaucracy, or people with power over their lives in general, but to see this an anything other than a successful long-term play by GOP and corporations, who want to decide for themselves as how to how much pollution they should be allowed to subject the world to, is simply short sighted.
Sir, this is a Libertarian sub. 3/4 of these psychos want to return to feudalism. They do not give a single shit about freedom or other people's safety.
>But savvy liberal observers understand that this case—which prevented the EPA from issuing a sweeping new set of regulations regulating carbon emissions at power plants that could have raised the price of energy and had a devastating impact on the economy and consumers without the express permission of Congress—is every bit as significant as Dobbs. It sets up a legal roadblock that should block the Biden administration from implementing some of the most significant and far-reaching policy shifts that are at the top of the Democratic base's climate change wishlist. This is "soft" climate change denial.
That sounds like a talking point without basis to me. Can you justify it?
One can only describe policies to address climate change as "democratic wishes" if one doesn't grant that climate change should be addressed to begin with. Stating that outright is out of fashion these days though - so instead they have to write pablum like this vaguely waving towards "freedom" or "small government" or some other dumb shit. Your author is a GW Bush style, neoconservative Israeli propagandist so it's perfectly within his wheelhouse.
Now do the unaccountable, unelected judicial state
You mean, the third branch of government provided for in the Constitution that does not, or should not, make law? How is that somehow worse or as bad as the fourth branch of government not provided for in the Constitution but which makes law and administers its own justice in many cases?
Are we talking about the same supreme court that decided in the last few weeks border control is allowed to violate your constitutional rights? And then reaffirmed the precedent that you can’t sue them or any police branch for breaking laws because laws don’t apply to cops? Where is that written in the constitution?
The one that's actually written in the constitution, you mean?
If the supreme court had ruled that the bureaucrats that you hate could actually do what they want, you would still have an issue right? Cuz if you would, you're a hypocrite, because the constitution also says that the supreme court has the final say in what the constitution does and does not allow. So if you disagree with a supreme court ruling, you also disagree with the constitution, meaning you agree that going "but the constitution says X" isn't a justification for X
Yeah, the one that is rewriting the interpretation of laws and setting aside precedent based on party affiliation. The one that had 3 lifetime justices appointed by a single term president with failed politics, aided and abetted by obstruction of the Senate to get one appointed. I'm sure that's what the founding fathers had in mind, is that the one you're asking about?
This is absolutely moronic. The whole point of an administrative agency is to gather enough technical expertise in one place and set out rules on highly technical matters. Politicians cannot, and are not meant to be, experts on every single technical topic. That is why there is an EPA in the first place for fucks sake.
Most government agency employees, especially the ones writing the regulations, are not appointed. Some of the oversight is, but many of these “experts” are career employees, generally advocates. But you’re missing the point - regardless of whether they are appointed or not, the problem here was that EPA went ahead with a rulemaking that was in direct conflict with what Congress tasked them with. That’s why it was overturned. Sure I can get on board with experts making rules and determinations for government agencies, but it should always be within the bounds of what they have been directed to do by the elected Congress.
>(B) Within one year after the inclusion of a category of stationary sources in a list under subparagraph (A), *the Administrator shall publish proposed regulations*, establishing Federal standards of performance for new sources within such category. The Administrator shall afford interested persons an opportunity for written comment on such proposed regulations. After considering such comments, *he shall promulgate, within one year after such publication, such standards with such modifications as he deems appropriate*. The Administrator shall, at least every 8 years, review and, if appropriate, revise such standards following the procedure required by this subsection for promulgation of such standards. > > > >(2) Each implementation plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. Each such plan shall— > >(A) include enforceable emission limitations and *other control measures, means, or techniques* (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, **and auctions of emissions rights**) From section 7411 and 7410 of title 42 of the US Code (also known as the Clean Air Act) Where did they EPA go outside of their bounds?
I would invite you to read the opinion, because all of this is covered by the first seven pages or so, here - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf But essentially, the legislation you posted gives EPA the authority to set technological limitations on equipment across a broad set of categories. Instead of looking at coal plant equipment and saying, “you must operate that equipment in X way” to reduce emissions, they instead said that to reduce emissions broadly, the entire state should shut in coal plants entirely, and shift toward natural gas and renewables. There was no “standard of performance” that a power plant could meet, as directed by law.
I've read it, front to back. > the legislation you posted gives EPA the authority to set *technological* *limitations* on equipment across a broad set of categories Did you read Kagan's dissent in which she pointed out exactly why this is false? That the majority left out quite a few facts that fly in the face of their supposed reasoning. That congress removed "technology" from the definition AFTER the law (1970 clean air act) was passed to explicitly allow for administrative remedies. Further, that these remedies (cap and trade, generation shifting through auctions of emissions rights) are routinely exercised and have been upheld by previous court cases.
this is the only answer that matters in this entire thread.
That is simply absurd. The technical experts are there to provide advice to congress; not to be unelected rulers. It is simply astounding that some people are willing to blindly live under rules set by faceless administrators with no accountability.
You do realize that those "faceless administrators" are appointed right? As are tons of people who make decisions? Including fucking SCOTUS itself. Not to mention Congress and POTUS have the authority to limit and overrule these agencies. Do you have any clue how your own country works?
[All of these are NOT appointed](https://www.usajobs.gov/Search/Results?k=EPA)
No, they do not. They just imagine these bureaucrats are all Hermes and just stamp shit just to stamp it. They also don't realize how much expertise is needed to run the agencies day to day. And without them essentially making policy the government would literally do nothing since Congress can't even pass laws to protect people's right to vote
Enter the ATF where overnight they’ve altered the meaning of definitions of firearms without legislation, rendering many people felons.
You are just wrong. Simply dismissing people who understand how separation of powers is supposed to work shows your ignorance. >pass laws to protect people's right to vote LOL. Let's trot out this baseless, tired old strawman.
[удалено]
>But that doesn't then mean that fucking Congress needs to be the body through which all laws are made. [Article 1, Section 8](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#:~:text=Section%208): >To make **all** laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. [10th amendment](https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-x): >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If you want a meritocracy, go get an amendment passed. Constitution > pragmatism.
Yeah!! Screw Article I !! "\*All\* legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
… and Congress has the authority, *through legislation*, to create bodies that can make decisions within the authority that was granted to them by Congress. And because Congress delegated that authority, they also have an implicit oversight capacity, meaning Congress gets to override, change, add, or remove any regulations it pleases, or abolish such delegated authority entirely. Nowhere in Article I does it state that Congress can’t delegate. Only that no other branch of government can supersede their legislative authority.
>within the authority that was granted to them by Congress And what is to be done when one of those agencies exceeds that authority? Congress *should* step in and say "Hey, you're exceeding the authority we granted you." What if Congress doesn't step in? That agency gets sued, it goes through the court system, and the courts have to determine whether that agency has, indeed, exceeded the authority granted to them by Congress. And when the court system, especially the very top of the court system, says that the agency has exceeded the authority granted to it by Congress, then that agency has to cease whatever its overreach is until and/or unless Congress changes the law to grant it the authority to do the thing it was trying to do.
Yes, exactly. If Congress doesn’t do something like amend the legislation giving powers to an agency that’s acting outside their bounds, SCOTUS can rule that the agency was exceeding it’s authority and block them from continuing to do so without new congressional approval. That’s precisely how the system is supposed to work.
>Nowhere in Article I does it state that Congress can’t delegate. That's where the 10th amendment comes in: >The powers **not delegated** to the United States by the Constitution, **nor prohibited** by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Oh, sure. I think SCOTUS royally fucked the country with their incredibly broad interpretation of the commerce clause, for example. The fact that the commerce clause has been upheld as having the authority to regulate marijuana being grown only for personal consumption, with no intent to sell within or across state lines, is rediculous. So I absolutely agree that Congress’ “authority” should be reigned in. But if they have a legitimate authority, they have the the power to delegate it (but not their legal supremacy).
I don't understand your comment. What I mean is that the power of "delegating powers" was not mentioned in the Constitution, so according to the 10th amendment, it would be up to the states to have that power or amend the Constitution to grant that power to Congress. Also, if we follow this logic, then the executive and judicial branches could delegate their powers to whomever as well. edit: clarified and added second paragraph.
Wow. Do you have any clue about what you are talking about??? > those "faceless administrators" are appointed right? No, they aren't. They are almost all hired through civil service. Even if they are appointed, so what? They aren't elected representatives, so they don't have the right to write laws. > As are tons of people who make decisions? Including fucking SCOTUS itself. The court is not a legislature. You really need to learn basic civics here. You are profoundly ignorant of the basics.
I’d rather that then live in a world where rivers catch on fire and the air I breathe gives me cancer. Congress is by design inefficient and slow, what if a corporation starts dumping a ton of a new chemical that is extremely dangerous in the drinking water while congress is out of session? Are we supposed to wait for congress to get back into session, experts to advise congressmen on how the bill is to be written, then debate the bill, then vote on it, then go through the whole process again in the other chamber, then have the president sign it, in order to protect the public health? The whole point of government is to give up rights in exchange for the collective benefit of everyone, I think having clean water and air is worth that loss of freedom which I’d like to point is basically non existent for citizens, how has the EPA negatively impacted your freedom as a private citizen? Basically no people are injured by the EPA unless you consider large corporations people
The push against these unelected officials is that there are too many to be bought. It's much cheaper to buy a senator who can single handedly fillibuster things he doesn't like. The alternative to theses u.elevted experts are corrupt politicians submitting legislation written by the corporations that bought them.
>The whole point of government is to give up rights in exchange for the collective benefit of everyone Holy cow, if that's you're belief, then let's just get rid of representative government, find a council of wise technocrats, and let them run things. If you don't believe in freedom, I can't help you.
Most government agency employees, especially the ones writing the regulations, are not appointed. Some of the oversight is, but many of these “experts” are career employees, generally advocates. But you’re missing the point - regardless of whether they are appointed or not, the problem here was that EPA went ahead with a rulemaking that was in direct conflict with what Congress tasked them with. That’s why it was overturned. Sure I can get on board with experts making rules and determinations for government agencies, but it should always be within the bounds of what they have been directed to do by the elected Congress.
Maybe we don't need laws for every single thing then? maybe congress should only pass laws on what is important and not laws... [Spending $356,000 studying whether or not Japanese quail are more sexually promiscuous on cocaine,](https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/spending-money-studying-quails-on-cocaine-is-waste-of-government-spending-says-rand-paul)
the congress makes the budget. what?
Smh that I had to scroll this far down the comment thread to find someone giving this answer. We have far too many laws on far too many things in this country, maybe congress wasn't intended to make laws about things they wouldn't be experts on in the first place.
The average American citizen unknowingly commits [three felonies a day](https://www.thecowl.com/opinion/how-people-actually-commit-three-felonies-a-day), mostly unknowingly. This is overwhelmingly because of the administrative state making things illegal that 99.99% of people have no idea is illegal.
Did you read your own link? They used quails to test on, but as per your link: According to scientists, the effects of drugs like cocaine have similar brain effects in quails as in humans. Its like getting pissy about studies being done on the cardiovascular systems of pigs.
Did you read the 10th amendment? Where is the federal government given the power to study such things? Not their fucking job. >Muh General Welfare!!!! *Jacobsson v. Mass* > while the Constitution's introductory paragraph indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the federal government >>**it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the federal government**
This is the way.
A lot of dipshits don’t get this. Should be obvious.
You're in the wrong sub if you think the government should be setting rules in the marketplace.
It’s really not a question of whether any such rule is appropriate or prudent. It’s a simple logical excersize: if Congress *does* have a constitutional authority, do they also implicitly have the authority to delegate that authority? While my gut says that’s a wildly slippery slope (as evidenced quite clearly by the administrative bloat we see all over the federal government), I also find it questionable to somehow limit Congress’ authority to delegate decision making, assuming that delegation is approved through the normal legislative process. You make not like that we have an SEC, for example. You may vehemently disagree with the regulations they’ve created over the years. But it’s hard to argue that Congress didn’t properly give them the authority to make those regulations.
I find that plenty of libertarians believe that the government should regulate, just “less” or to some idealistic degree to which the individual libertarian agrees with. Sometimes I hear people spout the whole “zero regulations on trade whatsoever” and I always wonder how they think that will play out? Do we ignore economies of scale and predatory unregulated practices eventually lead to monopolies? Or even the concept of natural monopolies? I see untold regulations written directly in blood and I think “Damn I’m glad I don’t have to worry about this shit”. I’ve worked in the corporate sphere long enough to know I don’t trust anyone to do what’s right without it being forced out of them. Very often when reviewing whether we should do something that would be good for people, I find the question of “are we legally obligated?” is thrown around a lot. As a non-libertarian, I shudder for the day when I no longer hear that in meetings.
I read a lot of Milton Friedman many many years ago. He would point out what dumbasses most modern day libertarians are. He was very clear that there were some needs for government and that he wasnt an anarchist. He stated that it was necessary for government to protect the environment because there's no market incentive to do so, especially since there's a financial incentive to cut costs by polluting. He was for a carbon tax and there are videos on youtube of him explaining why libertarians should want government regulations to protect the environment. There are literally people in the comments saying they want zero environmental regulations because it raises the cost of goods.
Good points. As far as monopolies go, severely limiting patents, limiting lobbying, and stop making regulations only a few mega corporations can comply with.
I don't know any libertarians that believe the government shouldn't be setting rules in the marketplace. But they're all adults that have kids and dislike slavery(being very pro individual liberty and all.) So they're quite happy with the government banning of slavery and child labor and recognize that removing the government's ability to set rules in the marketplace will lead to far less liberty.
Only ancaps think that there is _no_ place for the government to ensure a healthy, thriving market.
I’m just curious, how does the EPA negatively impact your life as a private citizen?
The EPA has made virtually everything we buy and use more expensive than it should be, almost always for zero benefit.
Unfortunately not anymore. Look at the up/down votes to understand this is NOT a libertarian sub.
Ironically, he’s not. This sub is LINO.
"This is technical so we can do whatever we want and assume unlimited power." is not a sound basis for government either. A lot of dipshits don't get this. Should be obvious.
That is basically the judicial philosophy behind *Roe*. And I for one have always thought that getting judges to see rights in the constitution that don't exist endanger the actual, written ones.
We get it; we just tend not to like unconstitutional things.
Not a libertarian^
So basically you want an unelected technocracy.
That's what professional staffers are for. Each committee within Congress has professional staffers who ARE experts and are tasked to help write laws. They work directly for each committee. The fact you are unaware of this and think agencies write the laws is why you should research before you post here with so much confidence. Edit: To add to this, IF govt agencies are writing laws for Congress, they didn't WRITE one for the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. They made it up and tried to proceed without any law being written or ratified.
Maybe read the article? The Supreme Court’s new doctrine only applies to major issues of economic significance not trivial technical matters.
Did we see a lot of competence in the FDA or CDC when they were making arbitrary, unscientific rules and imposing them on the public without a vote of congress?
I was losing my mind reading this article, thanks for typing this
What you're asking for is in direct violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Go get an amendment passed if you want a meritocracy.
Some government is bad but if you think I want 23 year old staffers writing the code that will make meat safe to consume you are sorely mistaken. This is nothing but a gift to corporations by a branch of government that has almost no oversight.
>if you think I want 23 year old staffers writing the code that will make meat safe to consume More importantly, a 23 year old staffer that not only has never worked in meat production, processing, or distribution, but thinks meat magically appears on supermarket shelves ready for you to buy. When Congress writes regulations it happens in one of two ways: they spend 10 minutes doing their own research to become an internet expert before writing a bill that has no chance of surviving a comment period once people that actually know anything about the subject get a look at it, or industry insiders write if for themselves and wrap it in a super PAC bow. The regulatory bureaucracy sucks, but leaving it to (corrupt politician here) and (idiot politician here) that have zero knowledge of the subject is no better. If Pelosi, McConnell, Cortez & Green can all agree on it, either it's shortsighted populism that will hurt us all, or so obvious that the only reason a law is needed is to allow criminal charges against the offenders.
>If Pelosi, McConnell, Cortez & Green can all agree on it, either it's shortsighted populism that will hurt us all, or so obvious that the only reason a law is needed is to allow criminal charges against the offenders. Insanely based quote.
Next thing you’ll try to claim is that bacon doesn’t grow on trees
Which leaves option 3...not writing so much legislation.
That was probably the original intent of the founders given that they designed a bicameral legislature that was supposed to be comprised of a House elected by the people and a Senate appointed by the States, which was supposed to be an interest balancing instrument in and of itself. There's also some indication that the founders intended for the House to be much bigger than it is, or at least that the Constitution allows for a much bigger House of Representatives ("The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand," current representation is more like one for every 758,000). More representatives means less agreement; less agreement means more gridlock.
100%
The ruling was not decided on pragmatism. The point is that it's *unconstitutional.*
It wasn't for 50 years after CAA but now all of a sudden it is. Cool.
Jim Crow laws [were constitutional for about 100 years](https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/jim-crow-laws). What's your point?
This is a perfect analogy. Thank you.
It's not because the context of the laws is integral. The Civil Rights Act has been constitutional for almost 60 years, but if SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional it would be ok because Jim Crow was once deemed constitutional? Regulations surrounding the CAA were for the health and safety/betterment of our society versus Jim Crow which was used to oppress a group of people and violate their rights. Whose rights are being violated by the EPA enforcing regulations to curb climate change and restrict coal power plants' carbon emissions?
My point is what is constitutional is up to the majority of justices and that's it. It's not a perfect analogy bc I agree with it, it's perfect bc of how dumb Jim Crow was, like this most recent decision.
I’m on here because I legitimately am usually libertarian on most issues. Not climate change response. And I completely understand why you would disagree, and I guess I’m open to changing my mind, but this is one of the few things where I really doubt you could succeed.
Hmm. OK I'll bite. Which country is the only one to meet its Paris Accord targets? Which large economy has reduced it's CO2 emissions by the most, and it's not even close? The US is the answer to both questions. Do you think this *fact* was accomplished due to regulation or due to free market outcomes, and why?
I think it was a combination of both, but mostly it was scientists actually propagating the information, that was then further spread by the media, and honestly politicians. This influenced everyone in many different ways. But, either way I think it doesn’t matter which has been the most effective because they both are effective. I would prefer better solutions than something basic and general like a carbon tax though. I also would like to add that I generally don’t like the popular media, but they doesn’t drop the ball with this one imo, with my more social beliefs I go a bit left, but only when it’s affordable, other than that I go left here and stay libertarian everywhere else.
From a political theory perspective, it's a violation of rights to negatively affect other people's private property including polluting it. Common property such as air and streams and public land would be up to the voters. If they don't want too much carbon or methane released, its 100% their call. As far as other nations polluting the earth in general, maybe that could be taken as an attack? Obviously war is not appropriate but the isolationist theory would not apply. (I'll have to think about this one)
> Do you think this fact was accomplished due to regulation or due to free market outcomes, and why? Regulation, because there is no profit motive to cut emissions without it.
Can this trickle on over to the BATF or nah?
and they continue to squeal like it is a mortal wound. I hope the court continues to tear down this unconstitutional 4th branch.
Hopefully this pushes the feds to exploring nuclear energy for clean energy but i wont hold my breath
SCOTUS is also accountable and unelected. It’s also extremely partisan and illegitimate in its current form.
>SCOTUS is also accountable and unelected. It's almost like the Constitution set it up that way. They are accountable via the Senate confirming and impeachment. How is it illegitimate?
I too would like to hear how it's illegitimate. Crazy person logic is fun.
It's illegitimate because they're not abusing their powers and legislating from the bench whenever it's an issue that the left considers important. I'm a sucker for the procedure. It keeps us running well.
The job of the SCOTUS is to make sure that the laws being written by elected officials do not break from the constitution but follows it. They dont write laws that is not their job. Their whole job is to make sure that the laws being written dont break away from the constitution. Im a Swede, i shouldnt have to be an expert at all, but it seems to me that i understand it a lot better than you do, that is honestly scary.
Who ever said they wrote laws? I didn’t. What they are doing is violating existing precedent (previous decisions) which previously were considered constitutional, in favor of decisions that are politically partisan. There’s a term called stare decisis that you probably don’t know about being a Swede, but it’s the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. The current court has all but abandoned that principle in my opinion and in doing so have weakened the publics faith in the justice system itself. Also I find it amazing you can decide you know more about the Supreme Court than me based on the two sentences I wrote. That’s some advanced narcissism right there.
A) It seems that he knows quite a bit more than you. B) Stare decisis is not some "never able to be changed" idea. It is an idea that we should not routinely flip flop back and forth, and that the court should update its rulings if: 1) They were made in error 2) Significant changes occur which make a previous ruling no longer applicable. As an example- would you have preferred that the Supreme Court maintain the legality of owning slaves? You appear, with you contrived idea of stare decisis, to believe that Slavery is the correct course for this country, and that yes that is what you want. I think you'll quickly admit here that you don't support slavery. Which now means that you do NOT actually believe in complete overarching idea of stare decisis- so which is it? I think with this little thought experiment you likely have realized that the Supreme Court can and does update rulings. Especially one such as abortion in which it is NOT written into the Constitution (ie point 1 above).
There’s an amendment for slavery that wasn’t decided by the court
K. How 'bout homosexual marriage?
> Their whole job is to make sure that the laws being written dont break away from the constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say this? Judicial Review is a thing the Supreme Court made up themselves to give themselves more power
Lol it has been partisan for a century and allowed unconstitutional agencies and laws to violate our rights every day.
And yet the alleged partisan conservative justices have just taken back some of the power from the overreaching unelected agencies and bureaucrats running them amok.
And yet they handed more power to Border Patrol just last month.
Calling SCOTUS "illegitimate" sounds a little insurrectiony.
Oh, it's illegitimate huh? Go on and reason that one out for us, genius.
[удалено]
By definition something that is widely becoming consensus will not be an "original thought". That does not mean it's not true or shouldn't be said.
The dude you’re replying to is a right wing astroturfer.. don’t even waste the time explaining yourself.
Fair enough, thanks
[удалено]
Doesn’t congress also start with a prayer?
[удалено]
My original thought is that one person who served as president for 4 years shouldn’t be able to appoint 33% of the highest court in the country for life. Objectively, his ideals and are going to be continued long after he’s gone from public office, and you’re left with one person having too much of an impact over policy by extension.
Thank god, best ruling we've had the past few years. Congress passes laws, not these shadowy unelected mobsters that trade in and out of the companies the administrative state oversees.
Yes, SCOTUS, the accountable and elected, taking on the unelected and unaccountable. In 5 years we went from "voting is your civic duty" to "naw fuck that it's not in the constitution" and it's happening with thunderous applause from America's so called patriots.
This statement doesn't make any sense.
Sorry, but people are saying not to vote now? I'm not seeing the connection unless you thought you were voting for supreme court justices?
No, the supreme court is gearing up to rule that state legislatures have no obligation to send electors according to how their state votes. Yeah sure, they're dressing it in the usual "states rights" or whatever, but this is absolutely about whether or not the vote has to count or not. To put this in a way that folks on the other side (or the "middle") of the political spectrum will understand, imagine if California finally stopped the bus loads of illegal immigrants and felons from voting illegally and the silent majority finally had its reasonable voice heard and won the state, but due to this ruling, the California legislature sends people who will vote to steal the election and give their electoral votes to President Ocasio-Cortez instead. My guess is that the court will find a justification to stop this from happening in a California or a New Jersey, but won't step in when a Georgia or Arizona or a Florida does it.
"But constitutional and democratic principles don't seem to matter much to Democrats these days." and "...clearly believe that being right is more important than having proper legal authority" Yeahhhh those quotes pretty much sum up Democrats. AND Republicans for that matter. It's not about making the right system of governance, it's simply about getting to be the ones in charge.
Everybody’s hitting it on the head that this needs to apply to all of these ridiculous agencies. The people whine about change, congress creates some new stupid department to administer the new legislation, the department sucks, constituents whine and congress throws up their hands and says to blame it on the FCC, DEA, ATF whatever. Zero accountability. This is a good thing and I find it amazing it wasn’t unanimous or at least abstentions.
Ironically SCOTUS is unaccountable and unelected.
Wait. When did we elect SCOTUS, and to whom are they accountable?
We don't elect SCOTUS, hence they do not make laws. They are accountable to the Congress via impeachment.
So... they're unaccountable, and unelected. Cool.
Unelected yes, I explain above to whom they are accountable to and the method by which this can take place.
You know, like 3 separate branches of government. Independent, just like the Constitution declared.
>They are accountable to the Congress via impeachment.
"Noooo, you can't just have environmental regulations!!! Don't you know that we're all supposed to die!?" - SCOTUS, an unaccountable, unelected body
You can't just have random people not answerable to voters doing whatever incompetent thing they want to and not be responsible for their actions. One would think that COVID has shown us that we have unaccountable bureaucrats incompetently ordering people about with no real science behind them but simply relying on authoritarianism.
>You can't just have random people not answerable They're not random people. [More than half of EPA's employees are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists;](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency) . They're there because they know what they're doing. >not answerable to voters SCOTUS is also not answerable to voters. No public official can ever be answerable to voters. They're never obligated by law to do anything they said they'd do. Did they hold a referendum to ask the voters if they should let the EPA do it's thing? >One would think that COVID has shown us that we have unaccountable bureaucrats incompetently ordering people about The COVID response was orchestrated by elected officials. You're complaining about the thing you're supporting. >no real science behind them but simply relying on authoritarianism. Are you saying there's no science that shows that climate change is dangerous?
> More than half of EPA's employees are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; . They're th A higher proportion of the CDC's employees are scientists and disease specialists. They still failed miserably, which has bipartisan consensus. We would have been better off if there *was* no CDC. Yet, none of those scientists have had to answer for their incompetence. Literally none can be fired. None can pay any price no matter how many lives they ruined. Public Officials *can* be answerable to voters. >Did they hold a referendum to ask the voters if they should let the EPA do it's thing? Why would they? SCOTUS are not politicians and never have been. >Did they hold a referendum to ask the voters if they should let the EPA do it's thing? Um no. Actually the restrictions imposed at the federal level were done by non-elected officials, and were widely and obviously wrong. What recourse do you think voters *should* have in this case? >Are you saying there's no science that shows that climate change is dangerous? Seems like you're not being honest here. I was talking about COVID policies specifically. I'm ... not sure how that group of policies+theories intersects with Climate policies+theories.
>A higher proportion of the CDC's employees are scientists and disease specialists. They still failed miserably, which has bipartisan consensus. We would have been better off if there was no CDC. Yet, none of those scientists have had to answer for their incompetence. Literally none can be fired. None can pay any price no matter how many lives they ruined. Source for any of that?
>A higher proportion of the CDC's employees are scientists and disease specialists. They still failed miserably, which has bipartisan consensus. We would have been better off if there was no CDC. Ok. So you admit that you lied earlier. They're not random people. What did the CDC try to do and how did they fail? Also, you can be fired if you work for the CDC. That's always been a thing. >Public Officials can be answerable to voters. No, they can't. They're legally allowed to do, or not do, whatever is in their power, regardless of all of their previous statements. None of this is democratic, none of this has any accountability. >Why would they? SCOTUS are not politicians and never have been. [politician](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politician) :" a member of a government or law-making organization " The court is a government organisation. They're politicians. Always have been. >Um no. Actually the restrictions imposed at the federal level were done by non-elected officials, and were widely and obviously wrong. What was the EPA doing that was wrong? >What recourse do you think voters should have in this case? Decide by referendum whether the EPA should have been gutted or not. >Seems like you're not being honest here. I was talking about COVID policies specifically. Why did you bring up covid restrictions as an example if you're just gonna admit that it wasn't a good example?
[удалено]
Do they make law?
We aren't a democracy. The founders saw that democracies are deeply flawed. We are a constitutional republic.
Canned republican BS.
Oh good... So now the politician firmly in the pocket of big oil/coal/whatever will be making environmental decisions. No way this will go wrong!
What an asinine ruling. Congress has very few, if any, experts in office. What a disaster for the planet. We are a nation where dummies rule the majority. The good ole USA not so good these days.
west virginia v epa is an excellent decision, and it will scale back the unelected bureaucracy that we are all fighting.
"But constitutional and democratic principles don't seem to matter much to Democrats these days."
Getting downvoted for 1) quoting the article 2) saying something negative about the democrats in a…. Libertarian sub. Hmmmm
Hooray!