Supreme Court at it again, this time with the EPA

[Frankfooter]

The supreme court has decided that the President and congress should not call the shots on the environment, that should be left to them.
Time for Biden to go nuclear on the SC, add in more judges.

Supreme Court handcuffs Biden’s climate efforts
The decision comes amid accumulating warnings from scientists that human-caused climate change is increasing the likelihood of more severe floods, droughts, storms and other calamities in the coming decades.

As the next president says:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1542509947350446080

 

[Frankfooter]

Another very unpopular move.

Two-Thirds of Americans Think Government Should Do More on Climate

Over half of Republicans and overwhelming shares of Democrats say they favor a range of initiatives to reduce the impacts of climate change.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Valcazar]

It's worse than that.
The Supreme Court has decided that the Executive Branch can't make rules or regulations.
If Congress wants something regulated, it has to specify exactly what the Executive can do or the courts can decide it couldn't have really meant that and just strike it down.

That's the logic that will be used going forward to strike down any regulations the judges don't like.

 

[Charlemagne]

Chris Hedges was right about the USA...

 

[Frankfooter]

It's worse than that.
The Supreme Court has decided that the Executive Branch can't make rules or regulations.
If Congress wants something regulated, it has to specify exactly what the Executive can do or the courts can decide it couldn't have really meant that and just strike it down.

That's the logic that will be used going forward to strike down any regulations the judges don't like.

So what do you think Biden should do now?

 

[Mr Deeds]

And they used to say the Supreme Court was totally uncoruptable

 

[ottawa_cuck]

Roberts wrote that capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal may be a “sensible” solution.

“But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme” under the law in question.

“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.

Writing separately, Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized the court’s move to limit agency power, which he considers unaccountable to the public.

“While we all agree that administrative agencies have important roles to play in a modern nation, surely none of us wishes to abandon our Republic’s promise that the people and their representatives should have a meaningful say in the laws that govern them,” Gorsuch wrote.

 

[ottawa_cuck]

 

[ottawa_cuck]

This means gas will be cheaper! Thank you President Trump

 

[mandrill]

Roberts wrote that capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal may be a “sensible” solution.
“But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme” under the law in question.
“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.
Writing separately, Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized the court’s move to limit agency power, which he considers unaccountable to the public.
“While we all agree that administrative agencies have important roles to play in a modern nation, surely none of us wishes to abandon our Republic’s promise that the people and their representatives should have a meaningful say in the laws that govern them,” Gorsuch wrote.

Cuck, if Congress was genuinely shocked and astonished at the EPA's use of its authority, wouldn't it have already drafted far more limited and specific statutory guidelines for the EPA?

 

[ottawa_cuck]

Cuck, if Congress was genuinely shocked and astonished at the EPA's use of its authority, wouldn't it have already drafted far more limited and specific statutory guidelines for the EPA?

Congress is built for gridlock. & thats how Nothing gets done.

 

[mandrill]

Congress is built for gridlock. & thats how Nothing gets done.

Congress could have given the EPA specific directions, chose not to do it.

 

[Anbarandy]

It's elemental.

The Constitution does not contain the words:

- environment
- EPA
- climate change
- carbon
- green house gases

BUT it can be inferred that it contains

- NO ABORTIONS ALLOWED
- OPEN AND/OR CONCEALED CARRY
- SEMI AND FULLY AUTOMATIC AND MACHINE GUNS ALLOWED
- POLLUTE AS YOU PLEASE

 

[Frankfooter]

It's elemental.

The Constitution does not contain the words:

- environment
- EPA
- climate change
- carbon
- green house gases

BUT it can be inferred that it contains

- NO ABORTIONS ALLOWED
- OPEN AND/OR CONCEALED CARRY
- SEMI AND FULLY AUTOMATIC AND MACHINE GUNS ALLOWED
- POLLUTE AS YOU PLEASE

Or computers, internet and porn.
Next on the list....

The question is what does Biden do, does he play nice politician or dig in and fight?

 

[y2kmark]

They can't leave science to the scientists, it's against their religion...

 

[Valcazar]

So what do you think Biden should do now?

I think they need to start threatening the Court.
Talk about expanding it again, talk about refusing to accept the rulings. Cut their funding.
The Constitution is badly designed, and the idea is that when one branch gets out of hand, the other two can combine forces to check it.
But the Dems only barely control Congress and also lots of the people in charge grew up in a time when things were less polarized and think they can get back there without it turning into a bare-knuckle brawl.
It's also harder to do that in the branch with the most people since you need more people on board with the plan.

Biden himself can't do much on his own.
The executive can ignore the court and do things its own way, but that is just gonna cause chaos and eventually you want a functioning court system so burning it all down isn't really feasible.
Court reform ultimately needs to go through Congress and they just don't have the votes to do anything radical there.

Congress could have given the EPA specific directions, chose not to do it.

Congress did give the EPA specific directions. It told them to use the best methods it had to regulate pollution.
The Court just didn't like the regulations so said that the best method had to be specified in advance, even if it hadn't been invented when Congress wrote the law.

Cuck is right about the gridlock being important though. One of the reasons the court is being so radical is that it knows Congress is gridlocked and can't push back.

 

[mandrill]

I think they need to start threatening the Court.
Talk about expanding it again, talk about refusing to accept the rulings. Cut their funding.
The Constitution is badly designed, and the idea is that when one branch gets out of hand, the other two can combine forces to check it.
But the Dems only barely control Congress and also lots of the people in charge grew up in a time when things were less polarized and think they can get back there without it turning into a bare-knuckle brawl.
It's also harder to do that in the branch with the most people since you need more people on board with the plan.

Biden himself can't do much on his own.
The executive can ignore the court and do things its own way, but that is just gonna cause chaos and eventually you want a functioning court system so burning it all down isn't really feasible.
Court reform ultimately needs to go through Congress and they just don't have the votes to do anything radical there.

Congress did give the EPA specific directions. It told them to use the best methods it had to regulate pollution.
The Court just didn't like the regulations so said that the best method had to be specified in advance, even if it hadn't been invented when Congress wrote the law.

Cuck is right about the gridlock being important though. One of the reasons the court is being so radical is that it knows Congress is gridlocked and can't push back.

The logical way to curb the court is through impeachment of rogue justices. There has to be potential for impeachment. What if justices failed to attend sittings, were drunk in court or openly took bribes?

There needs to be a clear statement that the law is America's and not just Thomas's and Alito's. What I mean by that - in part - is that landmark social justice precedents should only be overturned with reference to clear social sciences material indicating that views on the topic have changed widely throughout America and the law has to keep pace. If that is not a basic understanding of how the USSC operates, then each party can stack the court when it has the opportunity and flip the law back and fore - as with Dobbs - regardless of the views of the mass of Americans and the established prior law.

The problem is a political one. FDR could beat up the USSC because he had huge Congressional majorities and a very angry electorate. Biden does not have those Congressional majorities. Impeachment or enlarging the court are likely equally impossible without a major Dem landslide win and that in turn is likely impossible with the Red State / Blue State divide and gerrymandering.

 

[Valcazar]

The logical way to curb the court is through impeachment of rogue justices.

Can't happen.
You need 2/3 of the Senate to convict and the GOP has made it very clear they will not convict anyone supporting their agenda in any way, regardless of what they do.
"Being a judicial activist to put in laws and powers we can't win democratically" is not something they will ever impeach over.

There has to be potential for impeachment. What if justices failed to attend sittings, were drunk in court or openly took bribes?

The GOP will not convict them of that.
At least not if there is a Democratic President and Senate.
The GOP will accept impeaching a drunken justice who takes bribes if they get to pick the replacement.
Even then it will be iffy.

There needs to be a clear statement that the law is America's and not just Thomas's and Alito's. What I mean by that - in part - is that landmark social justice precedents should only be overturned with reference to clear social sciences material indicating that views on the topic have changed widely throughout America and the law has to keep pace. If that is not a basic understanding of how the USSC operates, then each party can stack the court when it has the opportunity and flip the law back and fore - as with Dobbs - regardless of the views of the mass of Americans and the established prior law.

That's a norm.
Norms aren't enforceable and the Federalist society and GOP spent generations working their people into place to break that norm.
All that matters is they have 5 votes on a 9-person court.
People can make whatever clear statements they want, those don't matter.

The problem is a political one. FDR could beat up the USSC because he had huge Congressional majorities and a very angry electorate. Biden does not have those Congressional majorities. Impeachment or enlarging the court are likely equally impossible without a major Dem landslide win and that in turn is likely impossible with the Red State / Blue State divide and gerrymandering.

Exactly.
That's the strategy, which is why I don't see a way out of this without something drastic.
The problem is that people don't want to go drastic if they don't absolutely have to, because most people want a functioning society.
Some of us warned again and again that the Supreme Court was a huge deal and major reason to not let the GOP get in position to take it over with a significant majority.
We were told we were blackmailing people for their vote and besides Roe was being used for fundraising by the GOP and would never be overturned and also focusing on women's issues like abortion was "woke" and "pandering to social justice warriors" and taking away from the important things.

 

[Frankfooter]

Exactly.
That's the strategy, which is why I don't see a way out of this without something drastic.
The problem is that people don't want to go drastic if they don't absolutely have to, because most people want a functioning society.
Some of us warned again and again that the Supreme Court was a huge deal and major reason to not let the GOP get in position to take it over with a significant majority.
We were told we were blackmailing people for their vote and besides Roe was being used for fundraising by the GOP and would never be overturned and also focusing on women's issues like abortion was "woke" and "pandering to social justice warriors" and taking away from the important things.

So you can't impeach Thomas and Alito because you don't have the congress votes.
Adding more judges means 60 votes in the senate or end the filibuster.
Turn every island around Hawaii into a state with a seat in congress?
Term limits?

The problem is Biden is a career politician whose sole identity is working nice with the other side.
You'd need an AOC with Warren, Schiff and Bernie to get something done, you'd have to get rid of Pelosi and then that would trigger the righties to bring out their militia.

hmmn

 

[mandrill]

Can't happen.
You need 2/3 of the Senate to convict and the GOP has made it very clear they will not convict anyone supporting their agenda in any way, regardless of what they do.
"Being a judicial activist to put in laws and powers we can't win democratically" is not something they will ever impeach over.
The GOP will not convict them of that.
At least not if there is a Democratic President and Senate.
The GOP will accept impeaching a drunken justice who takes bribes if they get to pick the replacement.
Even then it will be iffy.
That's a norm.
Norms aren't enforceable and the Federalist society and GOP spent generations working their people into place to break that norm.
All that matters is they have 5 votes on a 9-person court.
People can make whatever clear statements they want, those don't matter.
Exactly.
That's the strategy, which is why I don't see a way out of this without something drastic.
The problem is that people don't want to go drastic if they don't absolutely have to, because most people want a functioning society.
Some of us warned again and again that the Supreme Court was a huge deal and major reason to not let the GOP get in position to take it over with a significant majority.
We were told we were blackmailing people for their vote and besides Roe was being used for fundraising by the GOP and would never be overturned and also focusing on women's issues like abortion was "woke" and "pandering to social justice warriors" and taking away from the important things.

Isn't the 9-judge court constitutionally mandated?