07-06-2022, 12:28 PM
(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.
