Supreme Court Rules against EPA having regulation of green house emissions

[Sled21]

(07-05-2022, 03:32 AM)treee Wrote: It's judicial activism. Congress gave the EPA the authority.  

When?

[BigPapaKain]

(07-05-2022, 10:11 PM)Sled21 Wrote: When?

They didn't.

It was created via executive order in 1970 by Dickey Nixon.

[Belsnickel]

(07-06-2022, 08:37 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: They didn't.

It was created via executive order in 1970 by Dickey Nixon.

Correct. However, the agency has been tasked to carry out the Clean Air Act, which Congress passed and the Executive must act upon. The issue at hand, here, is that the SCOTUS has in the past taken the approach that if Congress tasks the Executive branch with doing something and doesn't specify how, then it is at the discretion of the Executive how that is done so long as their methods are not explicitly prohibited by Congress or the Constitution.

So, this is another precedent reversing decision that upends administrative law from essentially the early days of the country. Legislation is never written in a specific enough faction to allow for adequate execution of the law by the agencies. This was a narrow ruling, but the decision is predicated on this idea that Congress must explicitly grant the Executive the narrowest of authorities for them to do their job. What this does is hamstring the entire government. This could gut not just regulatory agencies, but also could greatly impact military and homeland security, as well. Regulatory agencies will be impacted first because we will see corporations and industries bring suit under this ruling's precedent to eliminate anything they find too burdensome. However, the anti-cop crowd could bring suits for a lot of the things that the feds currently do, as well as any sales of materials to the state and local agencies, and even going to far as to look at the specifics of how the military is granted authority.

I would have to look more into the statutes than I care to, but this opens the door for some very pedantic takes on our bureaucracy and has the potential to touch ever single facet of our federal government. Some will say good. This throws us back to a 19th century attitude of government. I will just say that the 21st century problems cannot be managed with 19th century government administration and trying to do so will be a massive failure.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-06-2022, 11:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Correct. However, the agency has been tasked to carry out the Clean Air Act, which Congress passed and the Executive must act upon. The issue at hand, here, is that the SCOTUS has in the past taken the approach that if Congress tasks the Executive branch with doing something and doesn't specify how, then it is at the discretion of the Executive how that is done so long as their methods are not explicitly prohibited by Congress or the Constitution.

So, this is another precedent reversing decision that upends administrative law from essentially the early days of the country. Legislation is never written in a specific enough faction to allow for adequate execution of the law by the agencies. This was a narrow ruling, but the decision is predicated on this idea that Congress must explicitly grant the Executive the narrowest of authorities for them to do their job. What this does is hamstring the entire government. This could gut not just regulatory agencies, but also could greatly impact military and homeland security, as well. Regulatory agencies will be impacted first because we will see corporations and industries bring suit under this ruling's precedent to eliminate anything they find too burdensome. However, the anti-cop crowd could bring suits for a lot of the things that the feds currently do, as well as any sales of materials to the state and local agencies, and even going to far as to look at the specifics of how the military is granted authority.

I would have to look more into the statutes than I care to, but this opens the door for some very pedantic takes on our bureaucracy and has the potential to touch ever single facet of our federal government. Some will say good. This throws us back to a 19th century attitude of government. I will just say that the 21st century problems cannot be managed with 19th century government administration and trying to do so will be a massive failure.

I largely agree, but I will say that this is what happens when said agencies start overreaching.  A good idea can quickly turn into an awful one if the person/organization implementing it goes beyond the intended scope of their discretionary powers.  We've talked several times about the ATF doing exactly that, changing laws and rules on a whim and making rules based on dubious, or flat out erroneous, logic.  I don't know enough about this EPA lawsuit, or the EPA in general, to know if that's the case here but the precedent is certainly there.

[Dill]

So far as I know, the Sheol of the Old Testament was just a dark shadowy place, very non specific.

The Greek/Roman Hades was rather a more complicated place. It was guarded by a 3-headed dog, and you had to cross the
river Styx to get there, paying a boatman. In 8th century Greece it wasn't much different from Sheol, and everyone, good and bad,
got the same deal,

but by the 1st century BCE it was tricked out with various levels of unhappiness and a place called "Elysium" where people who were good during life could enjoy leisurely pastimes of drinking, eating and hunting. There was no one version of Hell in the Hellenistic world. Literary and philosophical versions congealed into religious "truth" over time.

The "lake of fire" enters biblical hell imagery in the NT, where it is developed in further theological interpretations, not all of which regard the lake of fire as a metaphor.

Dante's multi-leveled and many-roomed hell is a medieval elaboration of Greek/Christian precedents.

Another way to look at this--medieval Christian theology projected earthly hierarchies into the afterlife at every level. If theocracy is a form of government, think of it as goverment regulation, or over-regulation, of the afterlife.

[*michaelsean*]

I’ll take Valhalla. Though with my luck I’d get there about one day before the ice giants showed up.

[Belsnickel]

(07-06-2022, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I largely agree, but I will say that this is what happens when said agencies start overreaching.  A good idea can quickly turn into an awful one if the person/organization implementing it goes beyond the intended scope of their discretionary powers.  We've talked several times about the ATF doing exactly that, changing laws and rules on a whim and making rules based on dubious, or flat out erroneous, logic.  I don't know enough about this EPA lawsuit, or the EPA in general, to know if that's the case here but the precedent is certainly there.

I agree with your take, here, but I have to say that the fault doesn't just lie with these agencies. The fault also lies with a Congress that doesn't do its job. What should happen, how our system is supposed to work, is that if an agency acts in a way that is not aligned with the authority granted to them, they get dragged into the halls of the Capitol to answer for their actions. This doesn't happen as much as it should because we have sycophantic Congresses that are afraid to buck their party when they have the White House. It's a mess.

Now with this SCOTUS precedent instead of corrective actions against rogue agencies we have a sweeping ruling that has a potential to really tear down the inner workings of our government.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2022, 10:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree with your take, here, but I have to say that the fault doesn't just lie with these agencies. The fault also lies with a Congress that doesn't do its job. What should happen, how our system is supposed to work, is that if an agency acts in a way that is not aligned with the authority granted to them, they get dragged into the halls of the Capitol to answer for their actions. This doesn't happen as much as it should because we have sycophantic Congresses that are afraid to buck their party when they have the White House. It's a mess.

Now with this SCOTUS precedent instead of corrective actions against rogue agencies we have a sweeping ruling that has a potential to really tear down the inner workings of our government.

I watched "Unfit" last night.  Tearing down the inner workings of our government is a goal for those who would love nothing more than a more authoritarian government.  Their party, of course.

[*Nately120*]

While it's bad form of me to bring the tangent stuff back up, in this case I think religion does have an effect on things in this case. A significant number of Americans who identify as Christian are convinced the world is going to end relatively soon, so I'd say that sort of thing could have an unreasonable effect on perceptions of how important long-term views of environmental sustainability actually are.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-07-2022, 11:08 PM)Nately120 Wrote: While it's bad form of me to bring the tangent stuff back up, in this case I think religion does have an effect on things in this case.  A significant number of Americans who identify as Christian are convinced the world is going to end relatively soon, so I'd say that sort of thing could have an unreasonable effect on perceptions of how important long-term views of environmental sustainability actually are.

Significant?  How large a number are we talking?

[hollodero]

(07-08-2022, 10:05 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Significant?  How large a number are we talking?

22% believe the world will end during their (I guess capped) lifetime, according to this survey .

[*michaelsean*]

(07-08-2022, 10:47 AM)hollodero Wrote: 22% believe the world will end during their (I guess capped) lifetime, according to this survey .

Dang we're killing it.  Damn Jehova's Witnesses.  Bunch of optimists in Austria I guess.  

[*Nately120*]

(07-08-2022, 10:47 AM)hollodero Wrote: 22% believe the world will end during their (I guess capped) lifetime, according to this survey .

There is also the more general idea that we are living in "the end times" that is up for debate.  

You also have politically aligned figures like Jim Bakker and Jerry Falwell telling people that fires and hurricanes and earth quakes are caused by god directly intervening due to mostly American social trends. 

Maybe only 1 in 5 th ink the world will specifically end in their lifetime, but the overall notion that this earth is destined to be destroyed or ended soon can have an effect on the acceptance if not outright exuberance for these issues.  


I'll aadmit I'm a bit rusty on the specifics, but there seems to be an idea that things are going to get really bad and that's a good sign because then the believers will be spared from the bad stuff. 

It's like we are on step 1 of the plan.