r/Futurology Jun 30 '22 Take My Energy 2 Silver 2 Helpful 1

Supreme Court severely limits the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions Society

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/court-severely-limits-the-epas-ability-to-regulate-carbon-emissions/
26.2k Upvotes

u/FuturologyBot Jun 30 '22

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Vucea:


EPA can compel lower emissions on existing sources, not drive a shift to renewables

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case that will severely hamper the ability of the US to limit its carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.

In an unusual move, the court kept a case alive that was focused on an emissions plan formulated by the Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency—even though that plan was discarded and replaced by both the Trump and Biden administrations.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the EPA has only been granted the power to control emissions from existing facilities—it cannot force utilities to shift to different, cleaner-generating technologies.

This will make it extremely difficult to use the Clean Air Act to compel a shift from coal to renewables, and it raises questions about whether the Clean Air Act can be used to set effective climate policy at all.


Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/voh489/supreme_court_severely_limits_the_epas_ability_to/iecylrs/

1.2k

u/Vucea Jun 30 '22

EPA can compel lower emissions on existing sources, not drive a shift to renewables

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case that will severely hamper the ability of the US to limit its carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.

In an unusual move, the court kept a case alive that was focused on an emissions plan formulated by the Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency—even though that plan was discarded and replaced by both the Trump and Biden administrations.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court determined that the EPA has only been granted the power to control emissions from existing facilities—it cannot force utilities to shift to different, cleaner-generating technologies.

This will make it extremely difficult to use the Clean Air Act to compel a shift from coal to renewables, and it raises questions about whether the Clean Air Act can be used to set effective climate policy at all.

740

u/Outside-Car1988 Jun 30 '22

it cannot force utilities to shift to different, cleaner-generating technologies.

Doesn't this just mean the EPA will fine the shit out of companies that try to weasel out of reducing carbon emissions?

506

u/randomaccount178 Jun 30 '22

The issue is effectively they can't ask someone to reduce emissions to a point below what is possible. They can regulate a coal plant to be as emission free as a coal plant can reasonably be with available technology but my understanding was they were effectively asking the coal plant to be more efficient then it was possible to be and in order to achieve that requiring the plant to develop different power generation to offset it or to buy those emissions allowances from others.

191

u/mlmayo Jul 01 '22

I'm not sure how much this ruling will actually matter in the long run, as costs on legacy power generation continues to increase while new "clean" power options decrease. At some point it won't make any business sense to stay with legacy technologies. Even now coal plants are very expensive to run.

186

u/Churrasco_fan Jul 01 '22

We were realistically never going to legislate our way out of the climate crisis. The monumental effort it would take to unite not just the politicians in this country, but the ENTIRE GLOBE to voluntarily shift towards renewable energy was just fantasy. People are shitty, for lack of a better word.

The climate problem will be solved when bleeding edge tech becomes widely available and financially prudent to implement at scale. Until that point anyone getting their hopes up for some kumbaya moment where world leaders suddenly go "yes we're fixing this" are just setting themselves up for disappointment.

And I say this as a staunch advocate of climate intervention who minored in environmental science back in the mid 2000's.

95

u/BustaChiffarobe Jul 01 '22

Corporations need to be profitable, and sell the lowest efficiency allowed, cheapest to produce tech.

Key word allowed, which is up to legislators. I agree that we were never going to legislate our way out of the climate crisis, but that was the way to do it.

34

u/Churrasco_fan Jul 01 '22

Sure, you're not wrong. And that may well have worked in the US if we had pressed a lot harder 10 years ago. I suppose my point was that you couldn't realistically expect that to happen in China, India, Russia, Brazil etc. at the same time - who are also major contributors to the problem. We all share the same planet after all, and if they don't clean up as well our efforts in the US will be noble but ultimately not enough

33

u/NehEma Jul 01 '22

At least for China and India, a lot of their emissions are to manufacture shit for us ("western rich countries")

42

u/TPMJB Jul 01 '22

"Hey we cut emissions!" The American company announces, after outsourcing everything

→ More replies

13

u/Churrasco_fan Jul 01 '22

They sure are. Adding further complexity to the legislative issue

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

29

u/thedirtytroll13 Jul 01 '22

Regulation will be a key part of addressing climate change. You can see this in the fact that our current forecasts while bad are much better than they were in the 90s. The world has worked towards cleaner economies. Some of this may be smart local legislation but both EU and US regulators have played a major part in driving progress.

More needs to be done and new tech created but "the gov. can't do it" is a self fulfilling prophecy based on a bleak worldview. Govt alone won't be enough but can talk sure help

→ More replies

10

u/Sniffy4 Jul 01 '22

yeah but that Kumbaya moment happened with Freon in 1987.

→ More replies

22

u/gregorydgraham Jul 01 '22

What a terrible hot-take.

Technology is only going to appear because of legislation. Recent history has shown that nothing else can drive its development and implementation.

10

u/RandoCommentGuy Jul 01 '22

Yeah, I feel if there is no legislation for it, there won't be money in it for companies, so they won't innovate and try to make tech on that front.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

66

u/donttouchmyhohos Jul 01 '22

"We cant do it, reasonably it will hurt our profits greatly /thread"

6

u/gingerhasyoursoul Jul 01 '22

Only in the scope of the clean air act. The EPA has plenty of ways to force lower emissions. This case was not as significant as it seemed and the SC took a pretty narrow ruling. The clean air act isn't very reliable anyways because the language leads to a lot of interpretation.

Basically yeah the SC gutted the clean air act. No that won't really hinder the EPA as they have other mechanisms to use. The scope of the ruling was surprisingly narrow for this shit show of a court. Everyone doesn't need to freak out yet.

→ More replies
→ More replies

91

u/Pharoacious Jun 30 '22

I work in industry and am regulated by the EPA. They are kind of fucked staffing wise. They just don't have the resources to enforce a lot of things.

117

u/oneofmanyany Jun 30 '22

Most government offices are understaffed. Schools too. This is the plan by republicans to turn everything over to private businesses for profit.

56

u/PB0351 Jul 01 '22

The US spends more money per student than almost any country in the world. In regards to our schools, the issue is too many administrative staff and not enough pay raises for good teachers.

21

u/IdyllsOfTheBreakfast Jul 01 '22

I don't know where your kids go to school but there are not enough resources for teachers or admins in my city, the whole system is fucked.

10

u/PB0351 Jul 01 '22

I agree the system is fucked, I'm just saying it's not a money problem.

21

u/Rymbra Jul 01 '22

I would say it is a money problem depending on where you live. Only like 8% of school funding comes from the feds. Rest is the state & local (about 50/50 each). If you live in a really poor part of a city/state, you’re constrained money wise to recruit teachers, staff, and do even basic building maintenance but the districts that are wealthy are REALLY well funded so that’ll throw the whole “US spends x per kid” # off. Like in some parts of Baltimore City it’s common for the kids in class to not have AC in the warm months or even heat in the winter. Head out 15 minutes down the highway to Howard county and that’s not happening. That’s not always from admin’s squandering money or incompetence (or too many of them), that literally is by design. It’s why people go to jail when they try to send their kids to schools in districts they don’t actually live in, why people overextend themselves when house-hunting, & why there’s a push for charter school vouchers.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/nuke-putin-now Jul 01 '22

Which is going to mean the whole society breaks up into feudal corporate fiefdoms which has been their stated goal for many decades. You know who's not going to do well in a society like that? people who don't have a lot of understanding or respect for science or logic or reason. people who think emotionally, those people are all going to get the shit jobs they're going to basically be slaves and serfs.

The rest of us will be forced to build our own closed societies and enclaves... guess who I'm not inviting in?

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/PungentBallSweat Jul 01 '22

Really? It must really depend on the geographical area of the US and company history. I have worked in environmental compliance for the private sector most of my career and the EPA and DEP have always been active in enforcement and on-site visits to my factories.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

24

u/ShadeofIcarus Jul 01 '22

So much for not legislating from the bench

29

u/Alex_2259 Jul 01 '22

The Supreme court? It's more like a GOP/Corporate decision board at this rate.

→ More replies

792

u/drtywater Jun 30 '22 Gold

For all the complaints about the Supreme Court the issue is how broken Congress has become. We need laws passed to address this stuff not rely on courts and executive branch action that can be changed with and administration change. Also people need to focus on state and local races more were change can also happen!!!!

266

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '22

[deleted]

65

u/Rawkapotamus Jul 01 '22

I mean the entire senate was designed to preserve southern slavery. It’s incredibly unDemocratic and it’s just gotten worse with the filibuster.

Honestly america is doomed unless they can remove the senate.

27

u/u8eR Jul 01 '22

That's what the people complaining about Congress don't understand. Congress was not designed to follow the will of the people. It's set up for minority rule. Passing laws that overrule the Supreme Court with the design of Congress will be next to impossible.

6

u/Prometheory Jul 01 '22

Not so much to enforce minority rule as to Prevent majority rule. Mob mentality was a very big concern, and for good reason considering how it effected rome and greece.

The fact that Congress isn't fully representative of the people is Supposed to be a part of the checks and balances mentality. It's Supposed to prevent Demagoguery, which is politicians using emotional arguments to drown out rational discourse and move the people to allowing them to ruin the country for their own gains.

It's basically an r/therewasanattempt situation.

→ More replies
→ More replies

26

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '22 All-Seeing Upvote

[deleted]

13

u/u8eR Jul 01 '22

How do you propose Congress do its job when half of Congress agrees with the rulings?

→ More replies

18

u/yetizap Jul 01 '22

But the problem is that congress is fucking broken. So if courts can’t “legislate from the bench”, executive agencies can’t create rules and regulations, and congress is broken and does nothing, then literally nothing gets done. And then we get fucked because of it. It’s INFINITELY better to have executive agencies create regulation than for no regulation to happen at all

→ More replies

7

u/TI1l1I1M Jul 01 '22

So they're Republicans, trying to tell other Republicans to do something, by passing Republican policy? That'll show 'em!

→ More replies
→ More replies

57

u/PM_SHORT_STORY_IDEAS Jun 30 '22 edited Jul 01 '22

Fantastic.

But the court should not be doing what it has just done this last session, even if Congress was functioning as well as we want it to.

EDIT: downvotes response reported me for suicide risk. Fuck people who do this.

26

u/Cylinsier Jun 30 '22

If Congress was functioning better, this court wouldn't exist in the first place.

8

u/u8eR Jul 01 '22

The problem is that it was designed to work this way. It was designed very poorly.

→ More replies
→ More replies

30

u/Stoneghoul Jun 30 '22

Outside of strongly held blue areas the Republican party had been working very hard to gerrymander elections in their favor for decades.

19

u/Rawkapotamus Jul 01 '22

Looking at places like Alabama. Where they’ve gerrymandered all the cities (which are an entire state apart from eachother) into a single district. And the state government said that’s not right, but the Supreme Court said it’s fine??

It’s just so completely fucked

→ More replies

22

u/drtywater Jul 01 '22

Gerrymandering is terrible. That being said Democrats have done a horrible job on messaging and reaching out to rural voters. A lot of rural voters would be interested in what Dems offer but the outreach has been terrible.

9

u/Stoneghoul Jul 01 '22

Sure, but the tribalism is really strong in rural areas. They really need representatives that are rural themselves out the there doing the work.

8

u/cman674 Jul 01 '22

The tribalism is really the main issue that gerrymandering creates. Instead of having diverse districts and forcing candidates to appeal to both sides they just cut things in such a way that instead of two more moderate representatives they end up with 2 highly partisan and opposite reps.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/SaraHuckabeeSandwich Jul 01 '22 edited Jul 01 '22 Wholesome

We need laws passed to address this stuff not rely on courts and executive branch action that can be changed with and administration change.

But they were using laws to address this stuff. The Clean Air Act, while broad, gives EPA the power to regulate pollutants that endanger human health, and excess CO2 is proven to be such a pollutant.

You could argue that Congress should manage environmental policy themselves through piece-meal legislation, but they simply don't have the knowledge to understand climate science or which types of measures are reasonable and/or necessary.

Honestly, when it comes to things like climate, I'd rather have a credible agency that specializes in environmental protection to set standards, especially one that hires scientists and experts in the field of climate policy.

Ultimately, the supreme court shot down a legitimate and longstanding measure by Congress to employ specialized experts to solve a specialized threat to humanity.

Imagine if Congress managed OSHA regulations or managed every NASA mission directly through legislation. Most of our representatives have never worked in construction, and they're certainly not equipped to understand the nuances or tradeoffs between different NASA projects and how to allocate specific resources for future scientific and human benefit.

We'd have never made it to the moon, and anything remotely dangerous-seeming in the workplace would be banned, while lesser-known-but-deadly things would be left completely ignored.

There are certainly flaws with the EPA and the agency-driven, but it's far more sensible that having 535 politicians vote on climate standards.

3

u/joaoasousa Jul 01 '22

But they were using laws to address this stuff. The Clean Air Act, while broad

And that's the problem. When an act is too broad it's considered a delegation of power between branches that cannot happen.

If EPA is supposed to be able to decide when a energy company needs to change power source, it needs to be explicit.

Labelling CO2 as a pollutant that can threaten human life is a very big stretch. The emissions aren't killing people or making them sick. The legislator obvious meant toxic emissions that are actually directly harmful.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5.8k

u/machinegunkisses Jun 30 '22 edited Jun 30 '22 Silver Helpful Hugz Table Flip

I don't know about you, I just don't feel like the Supreme Court is acting in my best interests lately.

1.5k

u/colemon1991 Jun 30 '22

Their entire pick and choose methodology only makes it look worse. As soon as the Obama-era plan was replaced, the case was null and void (nothing to fight). Instead, it gave them an opening to just say "screw agencies, everything should go through Congress except everything we don't want to go through Congress."

544

u/geekygay Jun 30 '22

This is what you get when you have someone with endless money with an agenda.

266

u/50FootElvis Jun 30 '22

And fascists.

39

u/RedEyeFlightToOZ Jul 01 '22

The Federalist Society

7

u/Yortisme Jul 01 '22

And bigots.

→ More replies

13

u/When_theSmoke_Clears Jul 01 '22

This is also what happens when you allow people to be outwardly religious in the Judiciary. Justices should maintain neutrality not politically left or right and definitely not Christian.

→ More replies

149

u/Cetun Jun 30 '22

"screw agencies, everything should go through Congress except everything we don't want to go through Congress."

"Except for police agencies, they should actually have more power and deference"

129

u/Comfortable_Shop9680 Jul 01 '22

That was the twist of the knife for me because the people most eligible and educated to regulate emissions would be the EPA. Congressman barely know how the internet works how could they understand something as complex as the impact carbon emissions have on global climate. That's a surefire way to ensure that corporations can lobby for their best interest to guide the regulations.

63

u/PM_ME_BAD_FANART Jul 01 '22

100%. It’s literally never been Congress’ job to execute the minutiae of laws. That’s why we have an executive branch.

Give the agencies money, goal, and limitations and then set them to work. Even if Congress had the expertise, they don’t possibly have the time to decide how some 200-300 agencies manage each of their individual missions.

10

u/Porencephaly Jul 01 '22

I’ve been pointing that out to my conservative friends and they’ve never even considered that fact. They think congress has the bandwidth to debate and formulate every decision handled by the dozens of federal agencies.

→ More replies

4

u/Comfortable_Shop9680 Jul 01 '22

Did you have special committees that focus in areas like energy. But again it's usually the experts that have to educate the committee members. Like the EPA is going to have to beg them to allow them to do their job basically. And explain why it's a real thing despite the fact that the rest of the world does regulate greenhouse gases. Just put it in that bucket with paid leave and universal health Care we're the only developed country that misses the mark on these really basic things

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

111

u/Zealous_Bend Jun 30 '22

It's worse than that, it is

  • we can only look at the words written in the act, we cannot consider the thoughts or debates of congress
  • if we don't like the words written in act because they are too powerful then
  • we have to ask what congress was thinking at the time except if those prevailing thoughts might grant rights to the people we don't like, in which case we make up obtuse 'tests' of the logic.

For a country that is based on the concept of the illegitimacy of unelected lifelong appointees, it sure looks like it is being ruled, very effectively and efficiently, by a council of monarch like reactionaries.

5

u/Lasarte34 Jul 01 '22

Sorry but the US, same as all other european colonies, fought for independence because of the local elites not wanting to share power with the ones from the metropolis. When the constitution says "ppl" it means "us the educated elites". The actual "people" just go with the flow of what the elites tell us, same we always have and always will.

Now this is not to say that modern democracy is not the best political system ever, but the US independence was a power grab from the would-be elites not happy with the status quo, same as all nationalist movements all over the world today, whose mantra is basically "if those guys weren't in charge I would be"

→ More replies

84

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '22 edited Jul 01 '22

[deleted]

39

u/PtrWalnuts Jul 01 '22

You were f****** day you were born. We all were. They spent the last 70 years screwing us over.

→ More replies

4

u/Malor Jul 01 '22

Right, by saying that anything 'major' needs to go through Congress, the real definition is that anything that conservatives don't like needs to go through Congress.

→ More replies

532

u/WellThoughtish Jun 30 '22

Faith in US "Democracy" is at an all time low. Worst still, it's been falling all my life and I'm nearly 40.

338

u/showMEthatBholePLZ Jun 30 '22

I mean, the point of the judicial branch is to have a branch that is not subject to the same democratic process as the legislative and executive.

With that said, they’re still supposed to uphold justice, serve the peoples interest, and should not be politically motivated but 5 judges currently appointed to the Supreme Court are acting like politicians right now.

36

u/xenomorph856 Jul 01 '22

Worse than politicians, as politicians can be voted out. These cretins are ideologues.

290

u/Garbleshift Jun 30 '22

All five of them were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. Three of them lied to Congress during their confirmation hearings, and a fourth was approved despite being obviously guilty of sexual harassment. One of them is a member of a fundamentalist religious cult and was rated unqualified by the bar association. Two of them are only on the court because Mitch McConnell openly, enthusiastically corrupted the appointment process, and not a single GOP senator cared enough about "justice" or "the people's interests" to oppose him.

All of them are on the Court solely as the result of a forty-year-long project to pack the judicial system with radical conservative activists.

One party abandoned the idea of an independent supreme court sometime around 1980. Somehow the rest of us are just now starting to recognize just how profound that betrayal actually was.

53

u/Throwmeabeer Jul 01 '22

*sexual assault. Not harassment. Assault.

→ More replies

33

u/DistributedDemocracy Jul 01 '22

Yeah but Democrats are the ones with more actual votes and Republicans have been blocking our judges to load the courts on purpose.

They also more or less illegally intervened in the Al Gore election before the courts were even stacked this bad and there is no way they should have done that. So.. the Court has been trash for a long time now and it's gotten much worse.

I expect a trend with states start to ignore the Supreme Court more and more as the whole concept get outdated. In this day and age appointment for life has no real place and that will become more and more apparent.

People don't realize how few police the federal government really has. If you don't think states can ignore courts, you forgot all about cannabis prohibition and if they can do it for that they can do it for anything.

7

u/showMEthatBholePLZ Jul 01 '22

Agreed, appointment for life is wild. They should absolutely have limits on the term length, and amount of terms.

59

u/SenatorBeatdown Jun 30 '22

The idea was that they were not supposed to be beholden to a changing political landscape. They were intended to be universally trusted scholars of the Constitution.

Now they are politically appointed priests.

Half of them are probably rapists. Some of them had large sums of money paid to family members.

The lens of analysis they view the Constitution from is "constitutional originalism" which is legal speak for "the Constitution is whatever I say it is"

When founding fathers said "fuck kings" what they really meant was "it should be nine unelected rulers instead of one. Instead of a line of succession, these little Kings should be chosen through a corruption-off"

Everything is fine. Pay attention to R Kelly instead.

20

u/Petrichordates Jul 01 '22

It's profoundly hypocritical too because actual textual originalism would negate the ability of the court to rule on the constitutionality of legislation. Of course they avoid that one because it's really a "pick and choose" version of originalism.

22

u/Viper67857 Jul 01 '22

Well, being Catholics, picking and choosing from ancient texts and interpreting them any way you want is second-nature

3

u/wikkytabby Jul 01 '22

When founding fathers said "fuck kings" what they really meant was "it should be nine unelected rulers instead of one. Instead of a line of succession, these little Kings should be chosen through a corruption-off"

Congress was actually boosted it to 9 in 1869 because its a power they have I guess, but It was originally 6. So in theory it could be 100 unelected rulers with a bit of tomfoolery.

→ More replies
→ More replies

27

u/WellThoughtish Jun 30 '22

The US judicial system I think has always been a mirror which reflects the unity of the country.

23

u/Warm_Aerie_7368 Jun 30 '22

This is a really interesting take, I want to know more

54

u/WellThoughtish Jun 30 '22

When the US is politically stable and unified, the judicial system remains impartial and interference is kept to a minimum. As that stability decreases interference increases and the system is less and less impartial or politically neutral.

I think the stability of the US political system is largely based on the balance of left and right. Once that balance falters and unity is eroded, interference in the judicial system increases and impartiality is lost along with trust.

Therein the judicial system mirrors the unity of the country.

5

u/lifelovers Jun 30 '22

Ah, deciding the president in 2000 strictly along party lines is about as not impartial as it gets… and that was pre-9/11 at a time of decent unity.

55

u/Bonetown42 Jun 30 '22

We’re talking about an institution that has no accountability to their constituents. These decisions aren’t even controversial, they’re straightforwardly unpopular. Moreover, Half the justices were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote. I think it’s hard to say that the Supreme Court mirrors anything about American society.

I’m curious what era you’re looking at as a golden age of political stability and Supreme Court impartiality because they’ve always shamelessly ruled in their own self interest.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/DistributedDemocracy Jul 01 '22

The US Federal judicial system favors Republican because it's Senate based which is not population based and basically not particularly Democratic.

It reflects the corruption and lack of representation in America.

You just saw them block Obama court picks and stack the court like that's business as usual now.

→ More replies
→ More replies

54

u/Stereotype_Apostate Jun 30 '22

I'm nearly 30 and not once in my life has a non-incuimbent republican president won the popular vote. Yet half my life has been under Republican administrations, and 4 of the lifetime appointed supreme court justices were appointed by those presidents who only got into office by means of the undemocratic electoral college.

→ More replies

20

u/chupacabra_chaser Jun 30 '22

Bro, same. It's never been worse at any other point in our lives.

→ More replies

74

u/Joe_Kinincha Jun 30 '22

Yeah. One really should take a moment to reflect what the fuck is going on when the Supreme Court feels it has to erect “unscalable barriers” around its perimeter before issuing its rulings.

6

u/AngryItalian Jul 01 '22

because they are forcing Congress to do their jobs? I disagree.

88

u/smallways Jun 30 '22

Dear Corporate Citizen: We are sorry for your concerns. If you would like to voice your concerns directly with the Supreme Court Justice assigned to your MegaCorporation, please press # now. What's that? You aren't a MegaCorporation Citizen and just a "biological citizen"? An agent will be with you "soon." Don't call us, we'll call you.

3

u/sersdf Jul 01 '22

This might be the edible I had, but I think that's a bit of a misapplication of the phrase "don't call us we'll call you," at least as it was used by the wannabe Beatles band, sugarloaf

→ More replies

4

u/Bluecylinder Jul 01 '22

Y'all need a civics lesson.

70

u/redtiber Jun 30 '22

I disagree. the rulings by the supreme court just highlight the deficiencies in the legislative branch.

important things like Roe V Wade should have been enshrined as law, not as a court decision based on a the 14th amendment.

similarly if congress wants the EPA to have the ability to force a shift to renewables, they can just do so.

congress just dicking around not doing the things they should be, and people need to vote and hold them accountable.

95

u/Stereotype_Apostate Jun 30 '22

The entire point of regulatory agencies is to delegate the minutia of regulation to experts in the field, because its simply not possible for congress to vote on every single rule and regulation. The modern economy is just far too complex to be entirely regulated by a body of a few hundred legislators that only meet for half the year. Every developed country has something like this as the backbone of their regulatory framework. To say the EPA cannot regulate environmental policies is to say that environmental policies cannot be regulated.

31

u/scolfin Jun 30 '22 edited Jun 30 '22

At the same time, the agencies need to be acting according to clear criteria as to what specific items they can act on rather than leaving it up to whoever's in charge. We don't let police departments define "murder."

On top of that, the court's finding was that trying to shift the entire country's energy sector is significant enough that congress should get its shit together and pass a bespoke policy.

12

u/oneofmanyany Jun 30 '22

Have you SEEN who is in congress. They could never do that. We are so screwed.

→ More replies
→ More replies

2

u/Mitthrawnuruo Jul 01 '22

I think a review of the Congressional record while show they are almost always in session.

And if they can’t do the job, they shouldn’t apply for it. Maybe if they spend more time doing their job, and less time doing insider trading that is illegal for you and me, but not them, they could meet their obligations.

→ More replies

49

u/ChronoPsyche Jun 30 '22

Give me a break. This type of rhetoric is so insanely disingenuous, it hurts. Yeah, Roe was overturned becuase the Supreme Court just now realized that it should've been a law. Not because of the relgious ideology of the conservative supermajority empowered by Christian conservatives who have been on a mission to overturn it for strictly religious reasons since it was passed /s.

Whether or not you think it should've been a law, the supreme court does have to weigh the effect overturning a precedent will have on the people it is currently protecting. They've stated this themselves. They had no right overturning Roe in a decision that would lead to every single woman in the United States potentially losing their reproductive rights becuase "well it should've been a law".

You really think if Roe is codified into federal law that the Supreme Court is gonna just let that stand?

If you're gonna do something controversial for ideological reasons, just own it, don't hide behind extreme literalism and technicalities. Especially when it's clear they are not being consistent.

Clarence Thomas listed off a slew of other rulings that might be overturned, including those that protect gay marriage, gay intimacy, and contraceptives. He notably did not include the ruling that protected interracial marriage. That was ruled on by the same rationale as the other ones on the chopping block, yet he mysteriously left that one out. Like I said, it's not about the technicalities or the judicial philosophy, it's about enforcing religious laws.

As for the EPA, congress gave them that ability. That's the whole purpose of these agencies, to have people who are experts in the fields that need to be regulated to make the decisions, not congress members who are unknoweldgable on those fields and don't have the time to be handling every single regulation.

→ More replies

21

u/Stardew_IRL Jun 30 '22

the entire point of regulatory agencies is to figure out the shit under their umbrella. Is congress supposed to pass laws about every single fucking thing? Theres literally millions. The point is they make these agencies and give them broad rules so they can work and regulate shit.

→ More replies

17

u/Xyrus2000 Jun 30 '22

Do you mean vote in heavily gerrymandered red states where currently the legislature and/or the secretary of state can just say "fake election" and overturn the result?

Or do you mean the upcoming case which will essentially grant unchallengeable powers to state legislatures in regards to elections that will turn red states into micro-dictatorships and ensure a tyranny of the minority?

No republican will ever vote against their fossil fuel masters. No republican will ever vote for abortion. And with the recent actions by the Republicans in red states and this upcoming ruling by the SCOTUS they will ensure no such bills ever pass through Congress. In fact, after the upcoming ruling, I doubt we will ever see a democratic president again as the state legislatures in red states will simply select their own electors.

The SCOTUS was the last stage of a plan Republicans started working on decades ago.

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/meep_42 Jun 30 '22

At least they've been nice enough put a time limit on their unpopular decisions.

23

u/Yourname942 Jun 30 '22

The sh**tiest part is: they have lifetime seats, so those few pricks in positions of power will seriously be destructive to the environment, to the middle class, and they will push their cult beliefs onto everyone else.

→ More replies

11

u/Zestyclose_Lunch_441 Jun 30 '22

They didn’t write the laws.

→ More replies
→ More replies

172

u/monsteramoons Jul 01 '22

There’s a saying that “regulations are written in blood”. Most of the regulations we have came about because innocent people paid the price. Those in positions of power just don’t care, they make more money when they don’t care.

Fascinating Horror is a good YouTube channel that goes through tons of events that led to the regulations we have today. Knowing how many people suffered and died unnecessarily, and how many of those at fault walked away, is pretty eye opening.

37

u/Churrasco_fan Jul 01 '22

I've driven through a ghost town in W.Va that was wiped out by a Teflon factory upstream (where I was working for a few weeks). Unbelievable spike of really aggressive and nasty cancers led to everyone who hadn't been diagnosed packing up and moving out.

It is truly unbelievable the damage companies have caused that are continually allowed to operate m

23

u/Kinggakman Jul 01 '22

EPA started after a few rivers caught fire due to pollution. It was started by Nixon of all people. I recommend giving rivers a wide berth in the near future.

88

u/Sutarmekeg Jul 01 '22

I see regulatory capture has won its battle against democracy.

→ More replies

214

u/Koffeekage Jun 30 '22

Its way bigger than that it severely limits what the executive branch can do via administrations. The congress is gonna have to earn their pay.

155

u/Necoras Jun 30 '22

Congress can't get Jack Shit done. The result will be no regulation, which is the point.

39

u/Pappy_OPoyle Jul 01 '22

They can get one thing done, raise their pay and immediately pass laws when they're threatened.

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/[deleted] Jul 01 '22

[deleted]

9

u/Petrichordates Jul 01 '22

Oh yeah congress is much better at this stuff. I, for one, want the guy who thinks snowballs prove global warming doesnt exist deciding environmental policy.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

337

u/Rhawk187 Jun 30 '22

They say Congress never gave the EPA the authority to do so. Easy solution, Congress can give them the authority to do so.

114

u/degotoga Jun 30 '22

Unfortunately climate change is a partisan issue so this will not happen

73

u/peperonipyza Jun 30 '22

Isn’t it wild that we still can’t agree human caused climate change is real and a problem? I mean I think the big problem is that people believe whatever their choice of media and Facebook posts tell them blindly. Political and financial interests are getting in the way of people agreeing on basic facts…

15

u/Measurex2 Jul 01 '22

Isn’t it wild that we still can’t agree human caused climate change is real and a problem?

Yeah! Why can't they support our troops?!?!?!

Seriously though - even the Navy thinks it's a problem and I can't think of many other entities with as much floating real estate.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2703096/dod-navy-confront-climate-change-challenges-in-southern-virginia/

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/Raisingaquestion Jul 01 '22

Only in the US though. Everywhere else in the developed world it is science.

→ More replies

151

u/Holiday_Inn_Cambodia Jun 30 '22

This is ultimately the answer. Democrats, when they’ve had power, have failed to codify their priorities into law.

Courts have been mostly conservative institutions throughout American history. Assuming that a handful of victories would hold and offer a continuing path forward to advance their agenda was stupid.

59

u/Cetun Jun 30 '22

Unfortunately one democrat is from West Virginia and the filibuster exists. So nothing will be happening.

12

u/cman674 Jul 01 '22

WV is such a fever dream of a state politically. It's a very red state (of course outside of Mon county and Kanawha county) but many of the people there want a lot of things that Republicans are opposed to. The Republicans pretty much run on a platform of guns and coal every election cycle.

They had massive protests in the streets of Charleston and outrage across the state when they tried to move towards privatizing schools, you know one of the main wet dreams of Republicans everywhere.

→ More replies

41

u/Xyrus2000 Jun 30 '22

Democrats have only had that power twice in 50 years. Once under the Carter administration where they had the closest thing to a real super majority, and once for a very brief period of time under Obama where they only had a super majority with the so-called "blue dog" democrats.

Healthcare was the big item during that short window of opportunity for Obama, and thanks to the blue dogs it was a fight to even get that passed.

For the rest of that time period, democrats never held both a majority in the house and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Partisan issues that were merely difficult to pass in the 90's have now become impossible due to the likes of Mitch "Grim Reaper" McConnel.

If you know of some procedural workaround democrats can use to magically "codify their priorities into law" I'm sure they would be happy to hear it. Right now the only way it could happen is with the nuclear option, but that isn't going to happen because the blue dogs (Manchin and Sinema) won't vote for it.

→ More replies

7

u/SaraHuckabeeSandwich Jul 01 '22

have failed to codify their priorities into law.

The Clean Air Act was literally codified into law.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, and seem to just be regurgitating the "Congress Bad!" talking points you've heard elsewhere.

While our recent congresses have certainly sucked in a number of ways, your "codification" criticism doesn't make any logical sense here.

7

u/Holiday_Inn_Cambodia Jul 01 '22

The clean air act was amended in 1990 to address acid rain, control a list of toxic pollutants, and phase out ozone depleting chemicals. This clearly addressed new issues which weren’t covered under the previous clean air legislation.

Congress, in that instance, did it’s job and specifically addressed a number of issues.

Attempting to address climate change through administrative regulation relying on an expanded reading of old statuary authority instead of passing new legislation was always a risky bet and subject to legal attack and obstruction.

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/Petrichordates Jul 01 '22

They haven't failed, they literally don't have the votes because Americans never gave it to them. You're pretending they could've done something they never had the opportunity to do, it's such lazy thinking.

7

u/Thosepassionfruits Jul 01 '22

For the life of me I can not remember the last time democrats had the power. Seems like McConnell has been obstructing congress my entire life.

8

u/night-shark Jul 01 '22

A brief, brief window at the start of the Obama administration. And they spent ALL of their political capital to overhaul healthcare and even then, they could only get through a compromised plan.

Recall, Obama wanted a public option and it had substantial Democratic support but they couldn't get enough support for it to get it passed.

The ACA has saved a lot of lives and done a lot of good. Our healthcare system is still totally fucked but it's substantially less fucked than it was before the ACA, for low income people, especially.

People on Reddit act as if Dems were magically capable of solving all our problems in that brief window of time.

5

u/DaveInLondon89 Jul 01 '22

That was Manchin too.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/TenderfootGungi Jul 01 '22

They actually have, it was just worded broadly and not specific. Go read the descents.

9

u/evanstravers Jun 30 '22

Somehow the "Clean Air Act" that's been around 50 years was suddenly not deemed worthy of being able to legislate Clean Air. Sus.

7

u/Petrichordates Jul 01 '22

They already did, they just want them to do it again now that they know congress is too broken to function.

→ More replies

1.2k

u/CplBoneSpurs Jun 30 '22

This SCOTUS is radicalized and doesn’t have the good of the people at heart. They’ve been politicized and got their seats by lying under oath. This is unacceptable.

369

u/Rampant_baconator Jun 30 '22

Gas prices are high though so centrists will vote red come mid term season. Can’t be bothered to pick a side when both sides are wrong. We should just all curl up into a ball stop making any decisions and let centrism guide our lives. Can’t go wrong if you’re not siding with anything specific other than gas prices. /s

204

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '22

Centrism is just conservatism at this point in america politics.

175

u/Rampant_baconator Jun 30 '22 edited Jun 30 '22

If you’re sitting at a table with four Nazis then there are five Nazis sitting at the table.

EDIT: Hilarious that I'm getting downvoted. Apologies to all the centrists out there who want to have dinner with Nazis but don’t consider themselves Nazis

28

u/Anonionion Jun 30 '22

Unless you're also being tortured by Cardassians.

→ More replies

8

u/SaraHuckabeeSandwich Jul 01 '22

And all five people at the table think they're that "fifth person".

5

u/zeropointcorp Jul 01 '22

Nah, usually at least one of them will be actively reciting the 14 words in his head

→ More replies
→ More replies

111

u/Stereotype_Apostate Jun 30 '22

Record gas prices and inflation are in pretty much every country due to global events but it's really just Biden and the Democrats turning the big economy dial from "good" to "bad" because they hate you.

63

u/Rampant_baconator Jun 30 '22

Lol seriously, how do these people even figure out how to chew their own food?

→ More replies
→ More replies

62

u/redchance180 Jun 30 '22

I'm a centrist and I'm voting blue due to the right attacking separation of church and government. I even believe in small government but I refuse to support Zealotry in political decisions. And will vote against it at nearly all costs.

26

u/Caelinus Jul 01 '22

From an American perspective that almost certainly makes you liberal and left leaning. You might be actually centrist when it comes to economic policy (which generally mean advocating for a mixed economy with aspects of socialism and capitalism) and foreign policy, but you will undoubtedly be essentially the same as the American left when it comes to individual rights.

Democrats are a centrist/big tent party. The right likes to pretend they are far left because it makes the "center" super far into conservatism. If you think Democrats are crazy socialists it shapes the way you interpret their policy, and warps the perspective.

But now we have Republicans running on openly racist, theocratic/dominionist, laissez faire, and fascist positions and pretending that they are rational positions, while the centrist mixed economy capitalists are actually communist terrorists.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

278

u/Chasing_History Jun 30 '22

Koch Industries thanks you for your service. Money well spent!

24

u/Pappy_OPoyle Jul 01 '22

America has a koch problem

→ More replies
→ More replies

127

u/flugenblar Jun 30 '22

I wonder how many left-interest important topics are going to all-of-a-sudden be ruled on my SCOTUS? What's next? Minimum wage? OSHA? FDA? Affordable Care Act? Shees...

Vote like the dickens this fall, get as many representatives and senators, who care what you care about, elected to office in November. Press them to enact legislation. Or get ready to turn the other cheek.

57

u/geekygay Jun 30 '22

Speaking of Dickens, don't forget child labor laws.

9

u/ThatGuyGetsIt Jul 01 '22

Or the Catholic church.

→ More replies

36

u/docarwell Jun 30 '22

Well they're probably gonna go after voting rights next so good luck with that

15

u/nylockian Jun 30 '22

People need to pay more attention to the Senate. The reason you have senators serving term after term is that they never have to make a tough decision - they just pass the buck. All the supreme court is doing is dialing back the mission creep that has happened in the courts.

I think this could be a good thing long term. Government might run more the way it was intended instead of this cobbled together approach.

Or it could be a complete disaster leading to civil war and widespread famon.

Really hard to say for sure which way things will go.

4

u/flugenblar Jul 01 '22

I agree, and some senators wield more power than virtually anyone else in Washington.

13

u/Xyrus2000 Jun 30 '22

I wonder how many left-interest important topics are going to all-of-a-sudden be ruled on my SCOTUS? What's next? Minimum wage? OSHA? FDA? Affordable Care Act?

All of them. This court does not respect precedent and is willing to twist any interpretation to work for their agenda. They even recently decided that Native American treaties no longer apply, allowing state enforcement onto tribal lands.

Nothing is safe from this court.

Vote like the dickens this fall, get as many representatives and senators, who care what you care about, elected to office in November

It won't matter in red states. Remember when I said nothing is safe? There's a case coming up in regards to gerrymandering, legislative election powers, and the reach of state courts in regard to said issues. We know how this court is going to rule. Once that's done, voting in a red state is going to be about as effective as voting in North Korea.

→ More replies
→ More replies

144

u/RedmannBarry Jun 30 '22

Man they really on a tear these last few weeks, by the end of the month there will be nothing left at this rate

54

u/pagerussell Jun 30 '22

Supreme court tryna speed run any% the collapse of society as we know it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

162

u/Imprettystrong Jun 30 '22

The fuck is the point of working and paying taxes when the people running our country are doing this?

84

u/BrokenSage20 Jun 30 '22

Imo revolution is looking more appealing.

27

u/jessh2os Jun 30 '22

Makes you wonder how bad things will get before that happens.

12

u/Mcdibbles Jul 01 '22

When climate change starts consistently causing crop failures, you'll start to see it.

20

u/BrokenSage20 Jun 30 '22

Probably pretty fucked with history as a guide. But then we will probably see a party like it's 1789. And that probably won't end well.

But after might be ok!

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/AlanSulf Jul 01 '22

Let’s not forget….also the “ATF to regulate firearms policy”….

5

u/redwhiteandyellow Jul 01 '22

The ATF absolutely needs to be struck down

95

u/ZeusBaxter Jun 30 '22

The United States is going to be the fucking end of us all.

→ More replies

145

u/tadpohl1972 Jun 30 '22

We are seeing what would happen if the Supreme Court was not bound by the law or precedent. What if the only thing that mattered was an individual Justices opinion or religious belief? What would they fuck up? We are seeing this happen in real time.

55

u/LeCrushinator Jun 30 '22

Normally Congress would be there to override with laws, but Congress hasn't been functional in about 20 years.

19

u/Chasing_History Jun 30 '22

If I was the EPA I would ignore it if congress can continue funding

29

u/geekygay Jun 30 '22

"Let's let John Roberts come enforce his ruling."

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/QVRedit Jul 01 '22

This simply reflects the fact that this was not what the bill was originally designed for.

So a new correctly focused bill will be required to encourage the move towards renewables.

It will no doubt be difficult to get through the house - hence the attempted short cut method - which failed to get approval.

21

u/lylisdad Jun 30 '22

This case is actually more about regulatory agencies enacting new regulations beyond what they were granted by congressional legislation. Not specifically about carbon emissions, that was just the test case used.

3

u/PAXICHEN Jul 01 '22

Your sensibilities will get lost.

→ More replies
→ More replies

33

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

19

u/Ham_Kitten Jun 30 '22

Unfortunately there has perhaps never been a president less likely than Joe Biden to say "they've made their ruling, now let's see them enforce it."

→ More replies

12

u/McFeely_Smackup Jun 30 '22

the number of people thoroughly proud of their utter ignorance of what this ruling is and means is beyond disappointing.

read more than the headline for once before forming an opinion.

→ More replies

3

u/SCOOPDAPOOP22 Jun 30 '22

Whats with the repetitive articles i get the fact that they are doing this but i dont need every single post to be the exact same article by a different company

3

u/CohesivePepper Jul 01 '22

The opinion was limited to the power of EPA to use Clean Act section 111(d) to regulate sources outside the fence line. They still have PLENTY of ways to regulate sources inside the fence line and facilitate the transition to renewable energy.

3

u/BasedDev Jul 01 '22

It's great that elected legislatures are finally being forced to take responsibility for political polices like abortion and environmental regulations.

Finally some accountability instead of power being handed off to unaccountable judges and bureaucrats.

3

u/Vanhelsing2020 Jul 01 '22

Certainly not when China and India are left running amok. Of people really cared about climate change they would not be only harping on the US about it 🤷

3

u/Logical_Area_5552 Jul 01 '22

Congress has an amazing playbook. Run on issues to raise money for the party. Do nothing. Create agencies and have all your buddies appointed. Have Supreme Court curtail the power of those agencies in absence of legislation. Run your next campaign and raise money based on the same issues and further inflame tribalism. Get elected again. Write books. Give speeches. Get famous by being outraged online and on cable news. This is a racket that not even the mafia could pull off.

65

u/Shinyspoons Jun 30 '22

I'm not saying this is a time to actually use the second amendment as it was intended, but I am saying this is already a tyrannical government

21

u/meep_42 Jun 30 '22

If I owned guns or wanted a visit from the authorities I would be asking who is ready to join a well-regulated militia?

→ More replies
→ More replies

22

u/Smodphan Jun 30 '22

The world is going to have to move on without us and try and save shit on their own. Everyone is just looking at us like a failed state and Democrats are just fundraising as we are stripped of our rights. Dark days ahead, everyone. Stay safe for real.

→ More replies

15

u/Ifch317 Jun 30 '22

What's next? Social Security? Medicare? Public education? Public transportation? How about bridges? We hate fucking bridges. All they do is stand there allowing people to cross God's barriers to sin and repugnant freedoms that were not explicit in the founders' intentions.

→ More replies

14

u/noonemustknowmysecre Jul 01 '22

Oh my fucking god. These fucking 6-3 ruling are the legacy of Trump and all the turds who voted for him.

Why is this on /r/futurology? This is more like /r/collapse.

46

u/lscanlon93 Jun 30 '22

WTF why does the supreme court have so much power and insist on using it to send America back to the stone age

22

u/langolier27 Jun 30 '22

Well, as much as I disagree with a lot of the rulings this term, a lot of it comes down to the executive branch overstepping it’s authority and the legislative branch ignoring theirs.

16

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

13

u/jaredcw Jun 30 '22

Cleverly worded headline amidst the Roe V Wade debacle... I'm shocked so many people are upset that a tiny bit of power has been taken from the already too powerful executive branch....

5

u/Mitthrawnuruo Jul 01 '22

This.

Coolidge for President.

17

u/ShadowController Jun 30 '22

Why are so many people upset about this now. The Biden administration had already shot down this kind of regulation even before the supreme court ruling, and not surprisingly, so did the Trump administration. I don't remember a lot of people screaming about it then. I guess now it's just because they can't enforce such regulations even if they wanted to?

→ More replies

21

u/FSYigg Jun 30 '22

Most people need to study how our form of government works because it's obvious that almost nobody understands what the Supreme Court's role is in it. They didn't limit anything.

→ More replies

15

u/rksd Jun 30 '22

All carbon dioxide emissions must be piped into the residences of Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Self-correcting problem!

19

u/bilgediver Jun 30 '22 edited Jun 30 '22

Personally, I'd rather take power away from an unelected government institution that is not accountable to the people.

It is CONGRESS that has the power to "drive a shift to renewables", by the one thing they literally have an unlimited power to do: TAX.

If you read the Constitution, there is literally no limit on Congress' ability to tax.

For example: Congress destroyed the Luxury boat industry back in the '90s purely by taxes.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1991-06-09-1991160128-story.html

https://boatingindustry.com/blogs/2022/02/01/the-luxury-tax-myth/

→ More replies

52

u/Lootcifer- Jun 30 '22

SCOTUS really doing the most evil fucking shit they can come up with to see how much they can fuck people. Wonder how long until someone goes off the rails and tries to harm one of them.

9

u/TomJohnstoneson Jun 30 '22

If I didn’t know better I’d think this sounds like wishful thinking.

17

u/[deleted] Jun 30 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/BaronVA Jun 30 '22

Theoretically speaking they'd only need to get 2 to get a majority

→ More replies

36

u/sylinmino Jun 30 '22 edited Jun 30 '22

"the most evil fucking shit"

What? I'm a die hard environmentalist, but the SC ruling is literally them saying that Congress didn't make a law, they need to make a law. Roberts even literally said in his majority opinion that what the EPA is trying to do is probably the right thing, but they don't have the authority until Congress gives it to them.

I know people who don't read the details of these cases like to say the SC is acting tyrannical, but it's the opposite. They're literally shoving the power into the hands of the legislature, which is elected by the people.

Fundamentally, SC's job is to interpret existing law, not to create new ones.

18

u/usaaf Jun 30 '22

The thing is, while that sounds great literally, and might even be the case if one read the law/structure of the constitution, the problem is most republicans (and those on the court) are very much aware that Congress is almost 100% ineffective when it comes to doing anything that isn't in the interest of the Capitalist ruling class. They're certain the legislature will be unable to take action.

This is the evil political version of being technically right.

Sure, Roberts is 'technically right' in saying that Congress should look at these things, but he's practically wrong because he knows that's not going to fucking happen.

That's the problem with these republican shitbags, they'll lie, cheat, steal, etc. to get what they want, hypocrisy, common sense, the law, whatever be damned.

Always trust a Conservative to be some combination of hateful, greedy, or filled with fear. Never expect honor, compassion, or logical thinking (except in the service of the previous three qualities) from one.

10

u/joevilla1369 Jul 01 '22

Didn't congress fail to pass a law to help people with baby formula? Didn't they vote against a whole bunch of different shit that could have helped people on all sides? Only thing they could effectively vote on and agree to is raising their pay.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/devicto89 Jul 01 '22

This is one of the long term effects from the last sitting president in office. I wouldn’t be surprised if they start talking about voting control being moved from federal to state control. Trump has really screwed the country by placing certain political followers in high profile roles before he left office.

→ More replies

22

u/standles Jun 30 '22 Wholesome

I know I will be the outlier. I know this ruling is unpopular but SC should not be making decisions based on popularity but constitutionality. While I am pro environment I am not ok with government agencies (insert any numerous alphabet soup here) being able to enact laws and regulations with no oversight. We elect congress to enact laws. These type agencies should create PROPOSED regulations/law for congress to duly consider and codify into law. Then the agencies can enforce said laws. Skipping the middle step is not acceptable.

12

u/Polaris471 Jun 30 '22

Totally agree. Congress could act at any time to put actual laws into place that the SC could not and would not overturn.

God forbid we actually expect Congress to do it’s job and not just keep expecting (or in some cases wanting) the SC to legislate from the bench.

3

u/gandalf_el_brown Jun 30 '22

problem is many establishment Democrats are also bought off by big oil and other corporations. Why Congress has not done its job. We need to get rid of money from politics somehow

→ More replies
→ More replies

12

u/cichlidassassin Jun 30 '22

So again, the court is just telling congress to do its job

2

u/Gryllus_ Jun 30 '22

is it possible to use this ruling against other agencies and their ability to regulate industry?

→ More replies

2

u/Beepbeepboop9 Jul 01 '22

What if I told you that none of this matters and that money is the only thing that does. That no one will invest in coal and due to ESG metrics, no gas either. Renewables (and perhaps Nuclear) are the only financeable path forward…