Anyone cheering about the EPA getting weakened by the supreme court...

@LamontCranston looking around at the cars and trucks and oil trains coast to coast I'm sure the EPA does nothing. But you have your own facts!

@Roundandroundwego You are not getting the point, sir. Congress makes a law and appoints an administrative agency to administer it. What happens when the agency exceeds the bounds of the enabling act?
It is actually a problem across the government, especially during this administration. The Court has stepped in as it should.
Even if everyone felt the agency was acting benignly. It may still be exceeding its authority and that is illegal..

@LamontCranston Congress giveth the power, Congress can taketh away. That is what delegation is. You don't want to elect every single person who manages a regulation. That would be insanity. But if your goal is to make government completely ineffective to reinforce a narrative about government being ineffective, this is a place to start.

@LamontCranston if it is exceeding it's authority, Congress should deal with it. If they can't, that's on Congress. This isn't really a constitutional matter.

@ViciDraco It is[b] precisely[/b] the function of the courts to rule when an agency exceeds its legal authority. And that is what has happened.
Even the Securities and Exchange Commission-in this administration- has tried to regulate environmental activity. This Court decision was essential.

@LamontCranston the court decision was overreaching and damaging to the long term welfare of the United States.

@ViciDraco The courts not only deal with whether legislation is unconstitutional. They also adjudicate when agencies exceed their authority. This is nothing new.
ven if the EPA was made up of saints (it isn't), they are restricted to the bounds of their legislative authority.

@ViciDraco @ViciDraco You have it wrong. The EPA regulations were the overreach.
If Congress wants to expand the jurisdiction of the agency, it can do so. The agency is not the Lone Ranger.

@LamontCranston fact: the powers and authority the SC hilds as understood by conservatives never was assumed nor existed prior to the Post WW2 era.

@ViciDraco [quote]You don't want to elect every single person who manages a regulation[/quote]

You are ignoring the problem.
The EPA is not simply managing.
They have been legislating - that is not their purview.
ELECTED legislators do that.
EPA isn't elected, they are appointed.

@MethDozer That is not fact at all. Where did you get that idea?
In fact, during the New Deal and through the early 70s there was a bit of freewheeling by the Court, expanding the role of government agencies and finding "rights" which weren't in the Constitution.
But the basic framework of the Court's power goes back to Justice John Marshall at least.

@Budwick carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers human health. This means caps on carbon dioxide emissions falls completely within the domain of the clean air act.

What legislation are you claiming the EPA has created?

@ViciDraco Read the Court's decision and find out. It will be laid out in detail for you.

@LamontCranston No that is a fact. Prior to the post war era the SC was a rarely active division of government and had a mostly hands off approach. Their participation in the ruling of the nation grew exponetially after WW2. Prior to that they rarely spoke.


Read a history book.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/read-west-virginia-v-epa/index.html
Decision in its entirety.
From page 4: Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.

@MethDozer Forgive me but this is nonsense. I know American history quite well, including legal history. Read [i]Marbury vs Madison[/i], one of the foundational decisons.
FDR's court-packing plan in the 30s was due to the Supreme Court's invalidating many New Deal pieces of legislation.

@LamontCranston oh but it is. The amount and types of cases heard by the SC after and during the second half the 1900s was unprecidented. They played a much smaller role in days past. Read a history book.

@LamontCranston @MethDozer You keep rpeating the same thing. If you have some statistical basis for what you say, please produce it. There were major decisions by the Court from [i]Marbury [/i] on
And perhaps you shold follow your own attempt at patronizing advice: read a history book.
The major difference between pre- New Deal and post- New Deal is the not entirely beneficial growth of the administrative state which has required judicial attention.

@LamontCranston you just keep spewing about the New deal as uf that is relivent.

@MethDozer It IS relevnt because the growth of the federal government was legally as well as politically important and it led to a changed nature of judicial activity.
By trhe way. I do not "spew". Please be polite.

@LamontCranston Nobit isn't because nobody but you ever brought up tje New Deal and it isn't realted to anything said.

@MethDozer You have not been reading what I have been saying. My view of history is that the Supreme Court has been active and essential to our constitutional system since the beginning. The change in the 30s was due to the New Deal's expansion of federal power. Simple.

@LamontCranston amd that is a bad faith arguement because I never said they weren't active or essential.

It's called moving the goal posts

@MethDozer You said
[quote]Prior to the post war era the SC was a rarely active division of government and had a mostly hands off approach. Their participation in the ruling of the nation grew exponetially after WW2. Prior to that they rarely spoke.[/quote]
I did not make a bad faith argument.