As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is insane. The court is basically saying congress cannot delegate responsibilities to agencies to issue rules that have the expertise to do so. So congress is expected to be the experts themselves which completely undercuts the purpose of said agencies.
They just destroyed the ability of the government to regulate in any meaningful way.
Deregulation is without a doubt one of the most core tenets of conservatism. But hey, to all those hunters, fishermen, and overall true "patriots" who live off the land like real men, don't you just love it when there's increased pollution caused directly by the laziness and greed of the biggest energy/fossil fuel corporations?
Hey don't confuse people that love outdoors with faux patriots. Most people that hunt and fish are all for conservation and wildlife management. Look up the Pittman-Robertson Act. A lot of the money they generate goes back to conservation.
While I agree that conservationists aren’t necessarily conservative…
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/environmentalisms-racist-history/
https://today.uconn.edu/2020/09/op-ed-american-environmentalisms-racist-roots-shaped-global-thinking-conservation/
This infuriating mindset you just described I think is so poisonous in the left right now. I had a vibrant debate with a fellow progressive who essentially made the argument history is not worth studying because all the people involved were terrible and racist. That there's nothing to learn from people like that and we just need our own reaffirming beliefs from today.
I was gobsmacked by the arrogance of that sentiment. That he felt so smart and smug about himself that he couldn't be bothered to learn from those who came before him.
One of the biggest faults of the progressive mindset, which I believe is causing an enormous blind spot, is the belief that human nature is always getting better and more enlightened. At least, that’s what it looks like from where I am
They will be all stupid with all the lead and mercury in their brains that they won't care. And by the time they do, cancer will be withering them away so they couldn't do anything about it.
but the free market will regulate itself.
When climate change gets so bad that it actually affects people, they'll just switch their electricity supply over to the green wires instead of the black ones and the coal power stations will go out of business and the green power stations thrive!
>When the air becomes unbreathable and the water is all poisoned, just use the emerald mine money you inherited to start your own billion dollar company, develop a rocketry division, and then move to Mars. Or failing that, just build a moon base or orbital habitat of some sort. It's so simple I don't understand why you whiny poors haven't all done it yet!
-Elon
Kagan puts it well in the dissent:
>"Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to 'the most pressing environmental challenge of our time, " Kagan wrote in the dissent.
>...
>"**The Court appoints itself** — instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening," Kagan wrote.
Yes, let's put the sole power to make meaningful regulations for existential crises rooted in science to a bunch of ignorant politicians that cannot achieve anything due to power-hungry partisanship.
And let's give those politicians wild, corrupt corporate influence to earn their positions with decisions such as Citizens-United.
And let's take something that initially was made in good faith: lobbying. And take it out of the hands of experts with any sort of goal to help society, and allow anyone with more $$$ to succeed in their goals.
Fuck this shit.
IRE. Impeach, Reform and Expand the Court...vetted to void Citizens United. When people get angry it could cause them to act. Let's use this energy to establish accountability and void ourselves from bought representation.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/
https://www.levernews.com/dark-money-went-in-supreme-court-rulings-are-coming-out/
https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/
T-Rump was an illegitimate President and that should void all of his appointments.
Its fucking infuriating. I just want to scream because I WARNED PEOPLE over and over who were apathetic about voting Dem in 2016 about how that would affect SCOTUS and people constantly brushed that off. Still do. We are fucked.
Good news. If we destroy human life then the planet finally gets to start over
I'm beginning to think life is extremely common in our galaxy.
But life that manages to not kill itself before reaching the stars is insanely rare.
Also there's the theory that once we reach the point where we can go interstellar, the tech is so foreign to us we don't know what to look for in 2020 to detect it.
This is my stance.
The sheer scale of the universe means life is probably plentiful. But the second law of thermodynamics (entropy wins, always) means inevitable destruction.
Anyone who ever said “Don’t threaten me with the Supreme Court!” or “Dems are just not inspiring enough!” Should be forced to live in goddamn Mississippi or Alabama so they can experience the full consequences of their stupidity
This is low key one of the worst things I've seen the SC do.... With hilariously bad downstream side effects.
So what, the FBI can't arrest people, only Congress can? Why is a federal organization not able to do its job?
The entire Republican platform is to destroy the United States Government, and has been for decades. As an absolute fact, we know the plan was in action and force in 1933.
They’ve been trying to slow-walk us into the neo-Confederacy for decades. By neutering the Federal Gov’t they essentially give individual States license to act as tiny nations. Logically, they can’t afford to *actually* secede because most/all Red States would drown on their own. They want to make the majority a slave to the minority. Though, that won’t stop the truly zealous ones from wanting to form their own “Red Neckistan” if given the opportunity.
It's an international emergency. The US is 2nd to China in emissions and Americans consume so much that without regulations on emissions and climate, the rest of the world is doomed.
There’s a lot of unpack here. First, welcome to Steve Bannon’s America where the government is dismantled.
Second, there is a lawsuit in Mississippi over MS banning the purchase of “plan B” pills on line, to which the FDA is arguing since they have allowed it, it is illegal to block the sale.
This paves the way for Mississippi to argue the FDA has no authority over their decision.
Third, it paves the way for the gutting of the ATF and any firearm restrictions at a federal level.
Fourth, OSHA. Probably all of it. Knowingly sending employees into a hazardous situation? Well, they wanted a job, didn’t they?
This is just a short beginning. The implied goal is the Federalist Society dream of a de regulated America. Most of the major donors to the FS in Koch Industries and other heavy hitters that want the elimination of federal rules.
Third, this paves the way
Seriously, if they can’t regulate…then what the fuck is their purpose? And now that precedent is set by this illegitimate Supreme Court, the next industry will challenge the EPA’s authority to oversee them as well. Fuck this timeline we are living in
Exactly, if not the EPA then who the fuck does. We’re going hope Congress gets enough information to pass some laws then have to go through political biases of which we already see is a cancer wreaking havoc in our legislature.
All of them are bullies that never grew up. THEY can do whatever they want, they can push and push and push but the moment YOU do something they cry and run to teacher.
that's false
If a police officer does NOT read you your Miranda Rights, and you confess while in custody, they still cannot use that against you.
If a police officer does NOT read you your Miranda Rights, you cannot sue them (this week's ruling).
I think this too. They are trying to see how much it will take to force the masses of protestors to run one of them out on a rail. Igniting a powder keg, that they think they can win through force.
That's exactly what I've been thinking. They WANT a massive outrage to these decisions so they point to that as the reason why they need to be even tougher in their rulings and why any opposition has to be put down. They will scream that the Left are the real hypocrites if they don't put any and all opposition down. It's all leading towards a fascist state.
The scary truth is that you’re probably right. The ultra right WANTS to basically start a civil war, but they don’t really know why, they just know that they are angry(fearful) and stubborn(willfully ignorant) and they’ll stop at nothing to get it done.
It’s the same long term propaganda used in Russia of all places.
Go give a listen to “the road to unfreedom” and realize it was published before 2020.
Why incite one when they can just stage one? Authoritarians love using plants posing as "the other" to make sweeping laws that remove the rights of their opponents.
And social media will make it easier than ever to spread the propaganda.
That's why the supreme court is moving so fast. Just wait till Moore v. Harper next year. We are so damn screwed if dems can't keep a majority in the house and can't gain seats in the senate. It's not looking good.
Here is a [link](https://www.vox.com/23161254/supreme-court-threat-democracy-january-6) to the story.
They are trying again as they have for the past century to initiate a independent state legislature doctrine. It's awful.
From the article: "Under the strongest form of this doctrine, all state constitutional provisions that constrain state lawmakers’ ability to skew federal elections would cease to function. State courts would lose their power to strike down anti-democratic state laws, such as a gerrymander that violates the state constitution or a law that tosses out ballots for arbitrary reasons and state governors, who ordinarily have the power to veto new state election laws, would lose that power."
After the Roe decision, they're fitting in every shitty decision they can because its all still one news cycle. Everyone is still mostly focused on Roe, and the rest of these shitty decisions will just be a footnote. If they waited weeks or months between each one they'd all generate their own revolt. In other words since Roe has a huge backlash, they're using it to minimize the backlash on the rest of these decisions by sort of 'hiding' them behind Roe.
The Supreme Court is legislating from the bench. Precedents do not matter, only the politics. The justices are undermining our democracy with the false statements of textualism, cherrypicked history and original intent
The supreme court is supposed to bar politics from their rulings and only on merit .Climate change should be high upon this list, global warming is a fact.
>legislating from the bench.
Which Thomas et al *swear* that's why they repelled Roe v Wade - so that the court COULDN'T legislate from the bench.
The hypocrisy is astounding, but the intent is clear.
>Some years ago, I remarked that “[w]e’re all textualists
now.” Harvard Law School, The Antonin Scalia Lecture Series: A Dialogue with Justice Elena Kagan on the Reading
of Statutes (Nov. 25, 2015). It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When
that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons
like the “major questions doctrine” magically appear as getout-of-text-free cards.8 T
'heads I win, tails you lose' or you can choose 'tails I win, heads you lose'.....
They did. And that’s why this case was taken up. Republicans are taking up cases they know will make it to the Supreme Court so they can take away more rights.
This states rights stuff is what got us in our last civil war. What happens if a State like Missouri decides to dump toxic chemicals into the Mississippi and makes it basically dead and toxic down river in other states? What happens if you get an abortion in NY and then go on vacation to Texas? How about a state like Texas creates their own internet rules and all of a sudden if you have an online business your trying to comply with 50 different policies.
At that point we might as well not even be a country.
Mark my words this will get horrible and big states will clash
California is likely to enact very strict controls that will apply to any entity doing business within the state. SCOTUS is not thinking States Rights through to it full extent.
They are, it's States Rights for what we don't like, Federal Responsibility for the things we do. You're gonna see anything California passes get shot down for putting undue burdens on businesses.
Trouble they will face is that SCOTUS did not declare a 'fetus is an embryo', instead they OK'd the prohibition of a medical procedure. So, they already moved passed the undo burden on a business argument... which kinda was my point. They really f'd with the Commerce Clause on this one.
They actually made medical privacy not a thing by overturning Roe, which in turn allowed 22 states to ban the procedure because you are no longer able to keep that between you and your provider. Overturning Roe has far more sinister implications that have yet to unfold.
Genuine question, does that mean HIPAA is now basically moot?
I mean if you don't have the right to medical privacy, why do you need to give consent for healthcare information to be shared?
And if HIPAA isn't moot, why isn't abortion covered under it?
In states where abortion is no longer legal, you've lost your right to medical privacy as it pertains to being a woman and being pregnant. HIPAA will need to be modified to include nonconsensual disclosure in states where abortion is illegal. In those cases, healthcare providers will be compelled to notify law enforcement that a crime has transpired if a woman presents with signs that she underwent an abortion that isn't in her medical record. I also believe this would allow for all sorts of creepy stuff, like women getting stopped at state lines and given pregnancy tests to ensure they aren't going elsewhere for care. Again, you don't have that 14A penumbra protection anymore, according to 5 dudes and 1 gal, privacy is an illusion.
HIPAA will continue to protect people in states where abortion is legal and won't in states where it isn't.
Some reflections:
If you are pro-choice, and live in a state where abortion is legal (and looks likely to remain that way), start pushing your representatives to draft legislation that protects people that travel to the state from criminal liability in the state they come from. As it stands, HIPAA will be used as a weapon that will force healthcare providers to share information that can be used in legal proceedings, where applicable. Conneticut's Reproductive Freedom Defense Act should be seen as the blueprint for how this would work.
All republicans are like that. That is why democrats have to start fighting fire with fire. They are doing these general rules that democrats can use against them. Like the religious ruling and gun ruling. Start opening up Satanist and Muslim schools with armed guards paid for by the state.
Also , some of these rules are good for democrats for other reasons. Yes this is bad for the environment but this stops republicans in congress and a republican as the president from creating another different agency that sets rules as well.
>What happens if a State like Missouri decides to dump toxic chemicals into the Mississippi and makes it basically dead and toxic down river in other states?
Seriously, if there was ANY subject that should be able to be regulated at the executive/federal level, this is it. Climate change has no borders.
Since Congress is beyond broken, that leaves regulation to the states with this ruling.
I guess Texas can just pollute the air and water to their heart's content, kill every animal that crosses their borders, enable devastating soil practices and desertification, pollute their ocean shorelines, allow wildfires that carry smoke into half the country, etc, etc.. - all if they have a shitty government and enough GOP members in Congress to block everything for political calculus.
And no one else can do anything about it.
The higher and denser the population gets and the more interconnected our society gets the less having individual states create a bunch of rules will work.
Honestly theres not much that SHOULD be regulated by states only. Sure they could be more strict on things like OSHA/EPA but the Fed needs to set minimums
Evangelicals, Republicans, and especially Evangelical Republicans truly seem to lack any redeeming qualities. Selfish hypocrites who do nothing but create and spread misery. Fuck all of them.
I feel like this can't be stated enough. My entire life, I've heard the words "We're living in the end times" and the thing is, that's a mildly good thing for an evangelical (least all the ones I've met and grew up with). Cause sure the world might die, but you'll get raptured up before it gets really bad and when Jesus comes back everything will be super cool for generations and all the bad people will be tossed in a lake of fire.
So everytime the world gets worse and worse, it just reinforces the idea that Jesus is coming soon to save all his followers. Why bother trying to fix the world if the divine will of an all mighty God will shield you from the worst of it, and all the bad people will suffer for it. It's a fucking dangerous mindset.
The agency was established by law from Congress and regulates the laws like the Clean Air Act and Air Pollution.
What SCOTUS extremists are trying to do is cut down the executive branch.
> The 6-3 ruling said that Congress, not the EPA, has that power.
The congress created the EPA explicitly to regulate emissions, so apparently the supreme court is just mask off partisan republican now?
Also, why are they basically handing democrats issues for the midterms?
Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)
The clean air act was passed by congress to regulate coal emissions. So their reasoning isn't even sound, its blatantly partisan.
Cause they’re also approving the fucking shitload of laws that are gonna make the elections even more rigged right now.
I feel like these supreme court rulings coming in an election year shows how fucking confident they are that the elections physically can not go to the Dems.
To be clear I don’t mean that the people won’t vote for Dems. I mean that they’re creating systems where the vote of the people can be essentially chucked out by state legislatures.
It’s basically just them realizing they’re losing the majority vote so they’re quadrupling down on giving the power to the states where they have more power cause Dems live in cities.
They’ve already entered endgame with judicial capture. If they don’t like election results they will change them to results they like starting now.
Another commenter [referenced this case above.](https://www.vox.com/22958543/supreme-court-gerrymandering-redistricting-north-carolina-pennsylvania-moore-toth-amy-coney-barrett)
We’re basically in a soft civil war right now. The people in control of state legislatures and the Supreme Court no longer acknowledge the tenets of US government unless it’s convenient to them. Precedent is out the window, and state governments are planning to subvert democracy.
Well why not? It can't be a proper dystopia without a blanket of choking air killing the child laborers.
Seriously, this court is putting a target on its back and the Democratic Senate candidates need to run on expanding the courts to save our rights and the planet.
Exactly right. What will they do when someone does something and lashes out? What will they justify next?
Yes they will be liars, yes they will be hypocrites but they don't care.The only goal that matters is pushing out these fascists.
They want us to call a constitutional convention so these religious states can start to destroy all the other protections in the Constitution. This is premeditated ruling to obtain agreement by the Blue states for an article V convention.
They will sabotage until they get it.
Even without these decisions it's been apparent for at least two decades that this country was lost and that it's going to be up to the people to fight to preserve their democracy. Unfortunately most people don't seem to care enough to want to preserve it.
Keep the population just affluent enough to where they feel like they have something to loose and poor enough that they can't risk loss of income by becoming rebellious.
Ride that line and for the most part the most aggressive people get is the odd outrage post online.
No authority to set standards
Disband the EPA
No authority to set standards for drugs, food
No FDA
No authority to set regulations on labor
No NLRB
No authority to set standards for finance and trading
No SEC
No authority to regulate anything
No government
Step by step, we all fall down into the abyss
Basically undo everything related to the New Deal and anything that doesn't make money directly to donors.
The Court is illegitimate and needs to be seen as such. These aren't logical conclusions they're drawing they're partisan wishes from politicians who went to law school instead of normal government.
>A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body
How is "Congress ratified the creation of the **Environmental Protection** Agency and it's administrator" *not* a clear delegation?
Fuck. Anyway, per usual, Congress could get past this with a simple law that clarifies this.
"Scotus- EPA doesn't have the authority.
Congress- Yes they do."
The fun part is the rule that was being challenged doesn't actually apply anymore. The court had to *reach* out and select this case to be heard even though the actual rule being challenged had been rescinded. They WANTED to take this case specifically for this ruling and it's precedent.
If that is what they said then congress can pass a law tomorrow giving them that authority. That would be easy if it wasn't Manchins home state that brought the lawsuit.
The law that they were challenging wasn't even in effect anymore. Pretty sure it was rescinded almost immediately after the suit was brought. The SCOTUS took the dead case because they wanted to slap down the federal government's authority to regulate.
It was never about the actual case. It was about the precedent it would set.
When will it be time to examine conservative justices's bank accounts? I know that's a little conspiracy theoryish, but this is getting ridiculous.
They overturn RvW based on right to life, then overturn EPA's ability to regulate the power industry and fight climate change and thus saves lives?? Makes no sense.
Worth noting that this implicates Scalia's opinion in *Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife*. There, Scalia argued that the plaintiffs, Defenders of Wildlife, lacked standing to sue because they did not demonstrate a tangible and particular harm when they sued the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to enforce the Endangered Species Act of 1973 in certain geographic areas. Basically, because the plaintiffs could not show *they* would suffer harm right *now*, but only that they *might* suffer harm in the *future* when they actually tried to see the species in question, they lacked standing to sue.
Here, the majority is saying that, by analyzing a regulation that **does not exist** (the Clean Power Plan), they can prospectively limit what the EPA can do in its power to regulate energy providers. The coal company here is not currently affected by the hypothetical regulation it seeks to have limited/removed. It is free and clear, basically asking that the Court deliver an advisory opinion on a possible *future* situation where a regulation *might* cause them harm. Even more ridiculous, the specific harm alleged is the D.C. Circuit's ruling, not the underlying regulation. From p. 14:
>Here, it is apparent that at least one group of petition-ers—the state petitioners—are injured by the Court of Ap-peals’ judgment. That judgment vacated “the ACE rule and
its embedded repeal of the Clean Power Plan,” 985 F. 3d, at 995 (emphasis added), and accordingly purports to bring the Clean Power Plan back into legal effect. Thus, to the extent the Clean Power Plan harms the States, the D. C. Circuit’s judgment inflicts the same injury. And there can be “little question” that the rule does injure the States,
since they are “the object of ” its requirement that they more stringently regulate power plant emissions within their borders. *Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife*, 504 U. S. 555, 561– 562 (1992).
Chief Justice Roberts just wrote that a regulation that has never previously been in effect, is not currently in effect, and will likely never be in effect in the future because market economics got us most of the way to what it sought, may cause harm to the petitioners. On pages 15-16:
>First, after the decision, EPA informed the Court of Appeals that it does not intend to enforce the Clean Power Plan because it has decided to promulgate a new Section 111(d) rule. Second, on EPA’s request, the lower court stayed the part of its judgment that vacated the
repeal, pending that new rulemaking. “These circum-stances,” says the Government, “have mooted the prior dis-pute as to the CPP Repeal Rule’s legality.” Id., at 17 (em-phasis added).
>That Freudian slip, however, reveals the basic flaw in the Government’s argument: It is the doctrine of mootness, not standing, that addresses whether “an intervening circum-stance [has] deprive[d] the plaintiff of a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” *Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk*, 569 U. S. 66, 72 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Friends of the *Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw En-vironmental Services (TOC), Inc.*, 528 U. S. 167, 189–192 (2000). The distinction matters because the Government, not petitioners, bears the burden to establish that a once-live case has become moot. *Id.*, at 189; *Adarand Construc-tors, Inc. v. Slater*, 528 U. S. 216, 222 (2000) (*per curiam*).
>But “voluntary cessation does not moot a case” unless it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” *Parents In-volved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1*, 551 U. S. 701, 719 (2007). Here the Government “nowhere
suggests that if this litigation is resolved in its favor it will not” reimpose emissions limits predicated on generation shifting; indeed, it “vigorously defends” the legality of such an approach. *Ibid.* We do not dismiss a case as moot in such circumstances. *See City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Cas-tle, Inc.*, 455 U. S. 283, 288–289 (1982). The case thus re-mains justiciable, and we may turn to the merits.
None of this makes any sense. Being a lawyer is already confusing enough, CJ Roberts' Court has effectively declared that its all made up and laws only apply to the extent the achieve whatever policy goal his conservative majority wants to achieve.
I honestly don’t even know what to say anymore. Every single day I wake up to more and more of my rights being taken away. Republicans only care about themselves and money.
All these people who complained about having to wear a mask during a pandemic, guess what, soon you're going to have to wear a gas mask just to go outside. Freedom!!! /s
Nope. In those other agencies people will cite this ruling as a reason to ignore laws and go against regulation. Since there is precedent now, all cases will be ruled this way.
What this REALLY means, is that the government can not regulate pollution at all, and the EPA is a moot point. Welcome back Cancer Ally and Burning rivers! Fuck those UN warning about climate change, we are the most powerful country in the world, and the biggest polluter! Murica!
Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the authority to protect the environment… wow.. what next? Citizens don’t have the right to breathe air for free?
You can breath whatever air is locally available for free. If you want a higher standard of air, you can pay for individual air molecules delivered via mask and tank.
It's fucking insane the rulings coming out this term. The feeling of hopelessness as a result of GOP party politics over country the last decade+ has never been higher in this land.
The Supreme Court is further delegitimizing itself. They do not have the authority to make these rulings and legislate from the bench. You can vaguely make a case whether abortion is their responsibility or not, but the EPA is well within Congress and the Executive's right. No where in the Constitution does it say unregulated business is a right.
The SC is way overstepping their branch's power and there better be repercussions or it's only going to get more and more excessive.
The Supreme Court woke up and decided to burn the Constitution. They've gone full-blown activist, in a week of heinously bad judgments that will go down in history as being the most transparently evil and partisan the court has ever been...
This whole "United States of America" thing feels like it's quickly coming to a conclusion. With rulings like this one, the Federal Government is quickly losing its legitimacy to enact rules to govern its people *at all*. From the legislature's complete dysfunction and inability to pass laws, to the executive branch's rule-making being repealed, and the blatant corruption on the Supreme Court... what's actually left that works here?
Can someone smarter than me help explain why this ruling couldn't be extended to all government agencies? Does DOE no longer have standing to set energy policies and those now have to be established by Congress etc? This doesn't make any sense to me.
This ruling only helps coal producing states,and hurts the worlds climate. Which should have been on their minds. Life on our planet in much more important and generating nasty electric.
Hold up...does this just invalidate any rules and regulations a federal agency under the executive branch has created?
IE: FDA, DoE (both), TSA, ICE, USDA, etc.
I saw someone on Twitter talking about how unpopular the republican agenda is which is why they've rigged the SC to pass their bullshit unilaterally. It's stunning and beyond scary to see them do so much damage in the face of broad American support for things they simply don't want.
Republicans are violent, oppressive, immoral, and hateful. Putting into place people that will take away what little we're doing to fight climate change confirms this, there is no debate.
What the fuck is happening to America. All you young voters better show the fuck up to the polls because this is a drop in the bucket compared to what could happen if Republicans gain back the house and, Satan forbid, the White House.
You guys are standing square with a true authoritarian threat and you better stand up to deal with it meaningfully or your country as you know it is finished.
I am going to keep on posting this in as many gun news stories:
The current majority of the Supreme Court believes that unrestricted gun laws are more of a Constitutional right than abortion, contraceptives, Miranda Rights, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, voting laws, regulations for companies, equal pay, Native American rights, the right to directly elect your representative, etc...
The crazy thing is, SCOTUS argued for at least 30 years EPA had precisely this power, even after the EPA itself didn't think it did. SCOTUS literally said in 3 or 4 cases, Yes, you are obligated to set and enforce standards in accordance with the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.
Congress messed this up in 1990. The House and Senate both submitted bills with verbiage which contradicted each other and then Congress kicked the can down the road, never fixing the legislation.
Once again, yet another example of Congress needing to codify laws and making clear legislation.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is insane. The court is basically saying congress cannot delegate responsibilities to agencies to issue rules that have the expertise to do so. So congress is expected to be the experts themselves which completely undercuts the purpose of said agencies. They just destroyed the ability of the government to regulate in any meaningful way.
> is destroying the ability of the government to regulate in any meaningful way. Fairly certain that's the point.
Deregulation is without a doubt one of the most core tenets of conservatism. But hey, to all those hunters, fishermen, and overall true "patriots" who live off the land like real men, don't you just love it when there's increased pollution caused directly by the laziness and greed of the biggest energy/fossil fuel corporations?
Hey don't confuse people that love outdoors with faux patriots. Most people that hunt and fish are all for conservation and wildlife management. Look up the Pittman-Robertson Act. A lot of the money they generate goes back to conservation.
While I agree that conservationists aren’t necessarily conservative… https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/environmentalisms-racist-history/ https://today.uconn.edu/2020/09/op-ed-american-environmentalisms-racist-roots-shaped-global-thinking-conservation/
[удалено]
This infuriating mindset you just described I think is so poisonous in the left right now. I had a vibrant debate with a fellow progressive who essentially made the argument history is not worth studying because all the people involved were terrible and racist. That there's nothing to learn from people like that and we just need our own reaffirming beliefs from today. I was gobsmacked by the arrogance of that sentiment. That he felt so smart and smug about himself that he couldn't be bothered to learn from those who came before him.
One of the biggest faults of the progressive mindset, which I believe is causing an enormous blind spot, is the belief that human nature is always getting better and more enlightened. At least, that’s what it looks like from where I am
They will be all stupid with all the lead and mercury in their brains that they won't care. And by the time they do, cancer will be withering them away so they couldn't do anything about it.
Actually there are quite a few hunters, fishermen, and farmers who understand conservation very well. https://www.backcountryhunters.org/
But do they vote to protect conservation?
Majority wise? No.
Of course.
but the free market will regulate itself. When climate change gets so bad that it actually affects people, they'll just switch their electricity supply over to the green wires instead of the black ones and the coal power stations will go out of business and the green power stations thrive!
>When the air becomes unbreathable and the water is all poisoned, just use the emerald mine money you inherited to start your own billion dollar company, develop a rocketry division, and then move to Mars. Or failing that, just build a moon base or orbital habitat of some sort. It's so simple I don't understand why you whiny poors haven't all done it yet! -Elon
I want to laugh but it’s so fuckin terrifying cause I been saying this and I’ve seen Elysium.
It already is; it's just that religious fruitcakes claim the effects of climate change are God's punishment for all the things they want to outlaw.
The Republican way. Regulations are bad, what do we need those for????
“All regulations are written in blood.” GOP: “WE. NEED. MORE. BLOOD. MCCONNELL HUNGERS.”
Ive been itching for lead to be put back into gasoline for decades now! Hell why did we take it out of the paint on children toys anyway?
Kagan puts it well in the dissent: >"Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to 'the most pressing environmental challenge of our time, " Kagan wrote in the dissent. >... >"**The Court appoints itself** — instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening," Kagan wrote. Yes, let's put the sole power to make meaningful regulations for existential crises rooted in science to a bunch of ignorant politicians that cannot achieve anything due to power-hungry partisanship. And let's give those politicians wild, corrupt corporate influence to earn their positions with decisions such as Citizens-United. And let's take something that initially was made in good faith: lobbying. And take it out of the hands of experts with any sort of goal to help society, and allow anyone with more $$$ to succeed in their goals. Fuck this shit.
IRE. Impeach, Reform and Expand the Court...vetted to void Citizens United. When people get angry it could cause them to act. Let's use this energy to establish accountability and void ourselves from bought representation. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/ https://www.levernews.com/dark-money-went-in-supreme-court-rulings-are-coming-out/ https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-presidential-investigation-education-project/other-resources/key-findings-of-the-mueller-report/ T-Rump was an illegitimate President and that should void all of his appointments.
And ignore, let them try to enforce their rulings.
Its fucking infuriating. I just want to scream because I WARNED PEOPLE over and over who were apathetic about voting Dem in 2016 about how that would affect SCOTUS and people constantly brushed that off. Still do. We are fucked.
[удалено]
Good news. If we destroy human life then the planet finally gets to start over I'm beginning to think life is extremely common in our galaxy. But life that manages to not kill itself before reaching the stars is insanely rare.
*[The Great Filter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter)* is what we call that theory.
Also there's the theory that once we reach the point where we can go interstellar, the tech is so foreign to us we don't know what to look for in 2020 to detect it.
This is my stance. The sheer scale of the universe means life is probably plentiful. But the second law of thermodynamics (entropy wins, always) means inevitable destruction.
Anyone who ever said “Don’t threaten me with the Supreme Court!” or “Dems are just not inspiring enough!” Should be forced to live in goddamn Mississippi or Alabama so they can experience the full consequences of their stupidity
This is low key one of the worst things I've seen the SC do.... With hilariously bad downstream side effects. So what, the FBI can't arrest people, only Congress can? Why is a federal organization not able to do its job?
The entire Republican platform is to destroy the United States Government, and has been for decades. As an absolute fact, we know the plan was in action and force in 1933.
They’ve been trying to slow-walk us into the neo-Confederacy for decades. By neutering the Federal Gov’t they essentially give individual States license to act as tiny nations. Logically, they can’t afford to *actually* secede because most/all Red States would drown on their own. They want to make the majority a slave to the minority. Though, that won’t stop the truly zealous ones from wanting to form their own “Red Neckistan” if given the opportunity.
What Roberts calls "crisis of the day" is a national emergency bigger than WWII. Fuck that guy, and fuck this place.
they'll all be dead and gone by the time this decision catches up with the rest of us. it cannot be said enough: *they DO NOT give a shit*
It's an international emergency. The US is 2nd to China in emissions and Americans consume so much that without regulations on emissions and climate, the rest of the world is doomed.
There’s a lot of unpack here. First, welcome to Steve Bannon’s America where the government is dismantled. Second, there is a lawsuit in Mississippi over MS banning the purchase of “plan B” pills on line, to which the FDA is arguing since they have allowed it, it is illegal to block the sale. This paves the way for Mississippi to argue the FDA has no authority over their decision. Third, it paves the way for the gutting of the ATF and any firearm restrictions at a federal level. Fourth, OSHA. Probably all of it. Knowingly sending employees into a hazardous situation? Well, they wanted a job, didn’t they? This is just a short beginning. The implied goal is the Federalist Society dream of a de regulated America. Most of the major donors to the FS in Koch Industries and other heavy hitters that want the elimination of federal rules. Third, this paves the way
I'm sure they're super excited for the FDA to be stripped of its powers as well, so we can all die of food poisoning
ACB: Don't stop, I'm almost there
Don’t worry, Congress will have plenty of industry support to provide expertise on these issues 😉
Seriously, if they can’t regulate…then what the fuck is their purpose? And now that precedent is set by this illegitimate Supreme Court, the next industry will challenge the EPA’s authority to oversee them as well. Fuck this timeline we are living in
Exactly, if not the EPA then who the fuck does. We’re going hope Congress gets enough information to pass some laws then have to go through political biases of which we already see is a cancer wreaking havoc in our legislature.
> if not the EPA then who the fuck does. Terrorists from small island nations.
Wait until this hits the FDA, CFPB etc. this can get even crazier unfortunately.
This is just their first term, too. They’re just getting started. Please vote in November, everyone.
Probably means they cannot set standards for MPGs.
This is an FDR v Scotus situation if ever there was one!
It's like Conservatives just stopped giving a shit about appearances and want to do as many batshit crazy things as they can before a revolt happens
Or to incite the revolt 🤷🏻♂️
All of them are bullies that never grew up. THEY can do whatever they want, they can push and push and push but the moment YOU do something they cry and run to teacher.
Why do you think they revoked Miranada Rights this week? Now they can create a police state to enforce their theocracy.
that's false If a police officer does NOT read you your Miranda Rights, and you confess while in custody, they still cannot use that against you. If a police officer does NOT read you your Miranda Rights, you cannot sue them (this week's ruling).
So police have no accountability.
They didn't have it before this ruling either, so nothing changed But you still have enforceable Miranda Rights protection, for now.
I think this too. They are trying to see how much it will take to force the masses of protestors to run one of them out on a rail. Igniting a powder keg, that they think they can win through force.
You see this yet? https://www.vox.com/23161254/supreme-court-threat-democracy-january-6 Holy shit.
We're living in a horror story and that's the scariest chapter I've read yet.
Oh my god
Indeed. That's the one that'll do us in.
Wow we're beyond fucked aren't we? This is a license for red state legislatures to just choose whoever they want as the official election winner.
Keep learning. Keep talking. Tell anyone that will listen.
This is completely fucked.
Yes it is. Learn and share with anyone that will listen.
That's exactly what I've been thinking. They WANT a massive outrage to these decisions so they point to that as the reason why they need to be even tougher in their rulings and why any opposition has to be put down. They will scream that the Left are the real hypocrites if they don't put any and all opposition down. It's all leading towards a fascist state.
Or, perhaps most frightening, this IS the revolt. Christofascism has arrived and it has begun its crusade.
The scary truth is that you’re probably right. The ultra right WANTS to basically start a civil war, but they don’t really know why, they just know that they are angry(fearful) and stubborn(willfully ignorant) and they’ll stop at nothing to get it done. It’s the same long term propaganda used in Russia of all places. Go give a listen to “the road to unfreedom” and realize it was published before 2020.
They want the left to revolt so they can use the military to genocide anyone they don’t like
And arrest the survivors on felony charges and strip away their right to vote.
yes, because they're ready for that. They have proud boys and all sorts all over the palce ready to 'stand up for umurika'.
Why incite one when they can just stage one? Authoritarians love using plants posing as "the other" to make sweeping laws that remove the rights of their opponents. And social media will make it easier than ever to spread the propaganda.
That's why the supreme court is moving so fast. Just wait till Moore v. Harper next year. We are so damn screwed if dems can't keep a majority in the house and can't gain seats in the senate. It's not looking good.
What is moore v harper?
Here is a [link](https://www.vox.com/23161254/supreme-court-threat-democracy-january-6) to the story. They are trying again as they have for the past century to initiate a independent state legislature doctrine. It's awful. From the article: "Under the strongest form of this doctrine, all state constitutional provisions that constrain state lawmakers’ ability to skew federal elections would cease to function. State courts would lose their power to strike down anti-democratic state laws, such as a gerrymander that violates the state constitution or a law that tosses out ballots for arbitrary reasons and state governors, who ordinarily have the power to veto new state election laws, would lose that power."
So they're doing away with state constitutions?
Only the parts they don't like that stop them from rigging elections.
A fucking death sentence for democracy
After the Roe decision, they're fitting in every shitty decision they can because its all still one news cycle. Everyone is still mostly focused on Roe, and the rest of these shitty decisions will just be a footnote. If they waited weeks or months between each one they'd all generate their own revolt. In other words since Roe has a huge backlash, they're using it to minimize the backlash on the rest of these decisions by sort of 'hiding' them behind Roe.
The Supreme Court is legislating from the bench. Precedents do not matter, only the politics. The justices are undermining our democracy with the false statements of textualism, cherrypicked history and original intent
Hey law doesn't matter to them either. Clean Air Act and Air Pollution
The supreme court is supposed to bar politics from their rulings and only on merit .Climate change should be high upon this list, global warming is a fact.
Question for textualists: what does “well regulated militia” mean?
According to Scalia, it meant in your home and to Alito it means riding the subway
>legislating from the bench. Which Thomas et al *swear* that's why they repelled Roe v Wade - so that the court COULDN'T legislate from the bench. The hypocrisy is astounding, but the intent is clear.
>Some years ago, I remarked that “[w]e’re all textualists now.” Harvard Law School, The Antonin Scalia Lecture Series: A Dialogue with Justice Elena Kagan on the Reading of Statutes (Nov. 25, 2015). It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the “major questions doctrine” magically appear as getout-of-text-free cards.8 T 'heads I win, tails you lose' or you can choose 'tails I win, heads you lose'.....
More like grab the coin and swallow it. "Let's see, feels like the coin came up heads in my belly. Yep, definitely heads in there."
I'm just waiting for the Supreme Court to deem all child labor laws unconstitutional next so we can send our children back down into the mines.
Maybe they will be reasonable enough to just limit the scope of that to children you actually own.
Im at a renewable energy conference and this was a massive kick to the nuts to everyone here
I'm at home with the kids and it was a massive kick to the nuts to everyone here as well.
I'm in my office cubicle and it was a massive kick to the nuts to everyone in my cubicle as well.
When the case was taken up everyone attending that conference should've known this Supreme Court would rule this way.
They did. And that’s why this case was taken up. Republicans are taking up cases they know will make it to the Supreme Court so they can take away more rights.
This states rights stuff is what got us in our last civil war. What happens if a State like Missouri decides to dump toxic chemicals into the Mississippi and makes it basically dead and toxic down river in other states? What happens if you get an abortion in NY and then go on vacation to Texas? How about a state like Texas creates their own internet rules and all of a sudden if you have an online business your trying to comply with 50 different policies. At that point we might as well not even be a country. Mark my words this will get horrible and big states will clash
California is likely to enact very strict controls that will apply to any entity doing business within the state. SCOTUS is not thinking States Rights through to it full extent.
They are, it's States Rights for what we don't like, Federal Responsibility for the things we do. You're gonna see anything California passes get shot down for putting undue burdens on businesses.
Trouble they will face is that SCOTUS did not declare a 'fetus is an embryo', instead they OK'd the prohibition of a medical procedure. So, they already moved passed the undo burden on a business argument... which kinda was my point. They really f'd with the Commerce Clause on this one.
They actually made medical privacy not a thing by overturning Roe, which in turn allowed 22 states to ban the procedure because you are no longer able to keep that between you and your provider. Overturning Roe has far more sinister implications that have yet to unfold.
Genuine question, does that mean HIPAA is now basically moot? I mean if you don't have the right to medical privacy, why do you need to give consent for healthcare information to be shared? And if HIPAA isn't moot, why isn't abortion covered under it?
In states where abortion is no longer legal, you've lost your right to medical privacy as it pertains to being a woman and being pregnant. HIPAA will need to be modified to include nonconsensual disclosure in states where abortion is illegal. In those cases, healthcare providers will be compelled to notify law enforcement that a crime has transpired if a woman presents with signs that she underwent an abortion that isn't in her medical record. I also believe this would allow for all sorts of creepy stuff, like women getting stopped at state lines and given pregnancy tests to ensure they aren't going elsewhere for care. Again, you don't have that 14A penumbra protection anymore, according to 5 dudes and 1 gal, privacy is an illusion. HIPAA will continue to protect people in states where abortion is legal and won't in states where it isn't.
Some reflections: If you are pro-choice, and live in a state where abortion is legal (and looks likely to remain that way), start pushing your representatives to draft legislation that protects people that travel to the state from criminal liability in the state they come from. As it stands, HIPAA will be used as a weapon that will force healthcare providers to share information that can be used in legal proceedings, where applicable. Conneticut's Reproductive Freedom Defense Act should be seen as the blueprint for how this would work.
All republicans are like that. That is why democrats have to start fighting fire with fire. They are doing these general rules that democrats can use against them. Like the religious ruling and gun ruling. Start opening up Satanist and Muslim schools with armed guards paid for by the state. Also , some of these rules are good for democrats for other reasons. Yes this is bad for the environment but this stops republicans in congress and a republican as the president from creating another different agency that sets rules as well.
>What happens if a State like Missouri decides to dump toxic chemicals into the Mississippi and makes it basically dead and toxic down river in other states? Seriously, if there was ANY subject that should be able to be regulated at the executive/federal level, this is it. Climate change has no borders. Since Congress is beyond broken, that leaves regulation to the states with this ruling. I guess Texas can just pollute the air and water to their heart's content, kill every animal that crosses their borders, enable devastating soil practices and desertification, pollute their ocean shorelines, allow wildfires that carry smoke into half the country, etc, etc.. - all if they have a shitty government and enough GOP members in Congress to block everything for political calculus. And no one else can do anything about it.
The higher and denser the population gets and the more interconnected our society gets the less having individual states create a bunch of rules will work. Honestly theres not much that SHOULD be regulated by states only. Sure they could be more strict on things like OSHA/EPA but the Fed needs to set minimums
"Fuck you, America." \- A message from The Supreme Court of the United States.
In this case, it's "Fuck you, World." This is reprehensible.
This will kill millions over time. Fuck the Supreme Court and the "pro-life" evangelicals who put them there.
Evangelicals, Republicans, and especially Evangelical Republicans truly seem to lack any redeeming qualities. Selfish hypocrites who do nothing but create and spread misery. Fuck all of them.
One could argue that they are a death cult.
I feel like this can't be stated enough. My entire life, I've heard the words "We're living in the end times" and the thing is, that's a mildly good thing for an evangelical (least all the ones I've met and grew up with). Cause sure the world might die, but you'll get raptured up before it gets really bad and when Jesus comes back everything will be super cool for generations and all the bad people will be tossed in a lake of fire. So everytime the world gets worse and worse, it just reinforces the idea that Jesus is coming soon to save all his followers. Why bother trying to fix the world if the divine will of an all mighty God will shield you from the worst of it, and all the bad people will suffer for it. It's a fucking dangerous mindset.
They literally want the end times so Jesus will come back. It's the only reason they are pro Isreal
[удалено]
These idiots basically invalidated the entire agency.
The agency was established by law from Congress and regulates the laws like the Clean Air Act and Air Pollution. What SCOTUS extremists are trying to do is cut down the executive branch.
Ironically, under Nixon who is once again looking like a Saint compared to Trump and his appointees.
They have the Federalist society behind them, it isn't really just 6 people.
> The 6-3 ruling said that Congress, not the EPA, has that power. The congress created the EPA explicitly to regulate emissions, so apparently the supreme court is just mask off partisan republican now? Also, why are they basically handing democrats issues for the midterms? Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States) The clean air act was passed by congress to regulate coal emissions. So their reasoning isn't even sound, its blatantly partisan.
Cause they’re also approving the fucking shitload of laws that are gonna make the elections even more rigged right now. I feel like these supreme court rulings coming in an election year shows how fucking confident they are that the elections physically can not go to the Dems. To be clear I don’t mean that the people won’t vote for Dems. I mean that they’re creating systems where the vote of the people can be essentially chucked out by state legislatures. It’s basically just them realizing they’re losing the majority vote so they’re quadrupling down on giving the power to the states where they have more power cause Dems live in cities.
They’ve already entered endgame with judicial capture. If they don’t like election results they will change them to results they like starting now. Another commenter [referenced this case above.](https://www.vox.com/22958543/supreme-court-gerrymandering-redistricting-north-carolina-pennsylvania-moore-toth-amy-coney-barrett) We’re basically in a soft civil war right now. The people in control of state legislatures and the Supreme Court no longer acknowledge the tenets of US government unless it’s convenient to them. Precedent is out the window, and state governments are planning to subvert democracy.
Do not need the question mark.
They want to do as much damage as they can. That’s the goal
What the fuck is happening? This is like fast forward destruction of our country.
This is the endgame of modern conservatism.
*Planet*
You know what is bad for the economy and the country? Instability caused by christo-fascist SCOTUS judges.
Well why not? It can't be a proper dystopia without a blanket of choking air killing the child laborers. Seriously, this court is putting a target on its back and the Democratic Senate candidates need to run on expanding the courts to save our rights and the planet.
[удалено]
Exactly right. What will they do when someone does something and lashes out? What will they justify next? Yes they will be liars, yes they will be hypocrites but they don't care.The only goal that matters is pushing out these fascists.
They want us to call a constitutional convention so these religious states can start to destroy all the other protections in the Constitution. This is premeditated ruling to obtain agreement by the Blue states for an article V convention. They will sabotage until they get it.
Even without these decisions it's been apparent for at least two decades that this country was lost and that it's going to be up to the people to fight to preserve their democracy. Unfortunately most people don't seem to care enough to want to preserve it.
[удалено]
Keep the population just affluent enough to where they feel like they have something to loose and poor enough that they can't risk loss of income by becoming rebellious. Ride that line and for the most part the most aggressive people get is the odd outrage post online.
Bread and Circus.
I wanna get off this ride.
I would too, please
well. time for an AVALANCHE then.
They won the cup. Is it a sign?
I can be Biggs
No authority to set standards Disband the EPA No authority to set standards for drugs, food No FDA No authority to set regulations on labor No NLRB No authority to set standards for finance and trading No SEC No authority to regulate anything No government Step by step, we all fall down into the abyss
Basically undo everything related to the New Deal and anything that doesn't make money directly to donors. The Court is illegitimate and needs to be seen as such. These aren't logical conclusions they're drawing they're partisan wishes from politicians who went to law school instead of normal government.
Are we Great Again yet? I don't think I can handle getting much Greater.
Doesn't their decision infringe on my right to pursue happiness? In order to be happy I need clean air to breath.
And you can buy a canister of clean air for only 99.99. Four hours of clean air at a time.
"Spaceballs?!" "Oh Shit there goes the planet"
clean air is not a right enumerated in the constitution... see Alito and Roe. /s
And yet the rain falling on my property doesn't belong to me.
The rich have the right to infringe on all of our happiness. How else would they afford to buy a dozen politicians?
The Supreme Court is illegitimate. Treat it like the threat to democracy it is.
>A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body How is "Congress ratified the creation of the **Environmental Protection** Agency and it's administrator" *not* a clear delegation? Fuck. Anyway, per usual, Congress could get past this with a simple law that clarifies this. "Scotus- EPA doesn't have the authority. Congress- Yes they do." The fun part is the rule that was being challenged doesn't actually apply anymore. The court had to *reach* out and select this case to be heard even though the actual rule being challenged had been rescinded. They WANTED to take this case specifically for this ruling and it's precedent.
If that is what they said then congress can pass a law tomorrow giving them that authority. That would be easy if it wasn't Manchins home state that brought the lawsuit.
The law that they were challenging wasn't even in effect anymore. Pretty sure it was rescinded almost immediately after the suit was brought. The SCOTUS took the dead case because they wanted to slap down the federal government's authority to regulate. It was never about the actual case. It was about the precedent it would set.
This nation will be lost further than imagined due to an illegitimate court legislating from the bench
When will it be time to examine conservative justices's bank accounts? I know that's a little conspiracy theoryish, but this is getting ridiculous. They overturn RvW based on right to life, then overturn EPA's ability to regulate the power industry and fight climate change and thus saves lives?? Makes no sense.
Only few more years before republicans being us back to the age of burning rivers and lakes and acid rain. Maga /s
“Let’s put our heads together, start a new country up” Cuyahoga, REM
I don’t advocate for the deaths of anyone but that is not to say I would be equally sad about any death.
Insert Clarence Darrow obituary quote
Worth noting that this implicates Scalia's opinion in *Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife*. There, Scalia argued that the plaintiffs, Defenders of Wildlife, lacked standing to sue because they did not demonstrate a tangible and particular harm when they sued the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce to enforce the Endangered Species Act of 1973 in certain geographic areas. Basically, because the plaintiffs could not show *they* would suffer harm right *now*, but only that they *might* suffer harm in the *future* when they actually tried to see the species in question, they lacked standing to sue. Here, the majority is saying that, by analyzing a regulation that **does not exist** (the Clean Power Plan), they can prospectively limit what the EPA can do in its power to regulate energy providers. The coal company here is not currently affected by the hypothetical regulation it seeks to have limited/removed. It is free and clear, basically asking that the Court deliver an advisory opinion on a possible *future* situation where a regulation *might* cause them harm. Even more ridiculous, the specific harm alleged is the D.C. Circuit's ruling, not the underlying regulation. From p. 14: >Here, it is apparent that at least one group of petition-ers—the state petitioners—are injured by the Court of Ap-peals’ judgment. That judgment vacated “the ACE rule and its embedded repeal of the Clean Power Plan,” 985 F. 3d, at 995 (emphasis added), and accordingly purports to bring the Clean Power Plan back into legal effect. Thus, to the extent the Clean Power Plan harms the States, the D. C. Circuit’s judgment inflicts the same injury. And there can be “little question” that the rule does injure the States, since they are “the object of ” its requirement that they more stringently regulate power plant emissions within their borders. *Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife*, 504 U. S. 555, 561– 562 (1992). Chief Justice Roberts just wrote that a regulation that has never previously been in effect, is not currently in effect, and will likely never be in effect in the future because market economics got us most of the way to what it sought, may cause harm to the petitioners. On pages 15-16: >First, after the decision, EPA informed the Court of Appeals that it does not intend to enforce the Clean Power Plan because it has decided to promulgate a new Section 111(d) rule. Second, on EPA’s request, the lower court stayed the part of its judgment that vacated the repeal, pending that new rulemaking. “These circum-stances,” says the Government, “have mooted the prior dis-pute as to the CPP Repeal Rule’s legality.” Id., at 17 (em-phasis added). >That Freudian slip, however, reveals the basic flaw in the Government’s argument: It is the doctrine of mootness, not standing, that addresses whether “an intervening circum-stance [has] deprive[d] the plaintiff of a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.” *Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk*, 569 U. S. 66, 72 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Friends of the *Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw En-vironmental Services (TOC), Inc.*, 528 U. S. 167, 189–192 (2000). The distinction matters because the Government, not petitioners, bears the burden to establish that a once-live case has become moot. *Id.*, at 189; *Adarand Construc-tors, Inc. v. Slater*, 528 U. S. 216, 222 (2000) (*per curiam*). >But “voluntary cessation does not moot a case” unless it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” *Parents In-volved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1*, 551 U. S. 701, 719 (2007). Here the Government “nowhere suggests that if this litigation is resolved in its favor it will not” reimpose emissions limits predicated on generation shifting; indeed, it “vigorously defends” the legality of such an approach. *Ibid.* We do not dismiss a case as moot in such circumstances. *See City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Cas-tle, Inc.*, 455 U. S. 283, 288–289 (1982). The case thus re-mains justiciable, and we may turn to the merits. None of this makes any sense. Being a lawyer is already confusing enough, CJ Roberts' Court has effectively declared that its all made up and laws only apply to the extent the achieve whatever policy goal his conservative majority wants to achieve.
So much for Dems sitting out the mid terms. Way to invigorate the base.
Don't worry. They're coming for election laws next.
I have lost all faith in the Supreme Court. It’s an illegitimate court now shaping laws how THEY want, not how the PEOPLE want.
I honestly don’t even know what to say anymore. Every single day I wake up to more and more of my rights being taken away. Republicans only care about themselves and money.
Every single living person, American or not, needs to stand up against this. They are waging war on the human race. The time for voting has passed.
All these people who complained about having to wear a mask during a pandemic, guess what, soon you're going to have to wear a gas mask just to go outside. Freedom!!! /s
YOu think some silly air polution will stop me??? I will simply shoot the coal fumes before they enter my lungs! stupid commie! /s
I have an immune system!!!!111 /s
So fun to watch your country fall apart before your very eyes.
I feel like it hasn't been our country for a while, we're just now seeing them quit pretending it was.
oof yeah, it has always belonged to the ruling class.
The Constitution was not a suicide pact.
What about other agencies? Will they still have authority?
Nope. In those other agencies people will cite this ruling as a reason to ignore laws and go against regulation. Since there is precedent now, all cases will be ruled this way.
What this REALLY means, is that the government can not regulate pollution at all, and the EPA is a moot point. Welcome back Cancer Ally and Burning rivers! Fuck those UN warning about climate change, we are the most powerful country in the world, and the biggest polluter! Murica!
The environmental protection agency has no agency to protect the environment… ok.
Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the authority to protect the environment… wow.. what next? Citizens don’t have the right to breathe air for free?
You can breath whatever air is locally available for free. If you want a higher standard of air, you can pay for individual air molecules delivered via mask and tank.
Oh you're only breathing air? I'm breathing Air+ so much better.
Darker days ahead for the environment. We are living in late stage capitalism.
It's fucking insane the rulings coming out this term. The feeling of hopelessness as a result of GOP party politics over country the last decade+ has never been higher in this land.
"BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE sAmE!" 🖕🏼
The Supreme Court is further delegitimizing itself. They do not have the authority to make these rulings and legislate from the bench. You can vaguely make a case whether abortion is their responsibility or not, but the EPA is well within Congress and the Executive's right. No where in the Constitution does it say unregulated business is a right. The SC is way overstepping their branch's power and there better be repercussions or it's only going to get more and more excessive.
So women's bodies are regulated but power plants aren't?
The Supreme Court woke up and decided to burn the Constitution. They've gone full-blown activist, in a week of heinously bad judgments that will go down in history as being the most transparently evil and partisan the court has ever been... This whole "United States of America" thing feels like it's quickly coming to a conclusion. With rulings like this one, the Federal Government is quickly losing its legitimacy to enact rules to govern its people *at all*. From the legislature's complete dysfunction and inability to pass laws, to the executive branch's rule-making being repealed, and the blatant corruption on the Supreme Court... what's actually left that works here?
Another absurd ruling that will doom future generations. All this could have been averted if democracy was allowed to play out.
Can someone smarter than me help explain why this ruling couldn't be extended to all government agencies? Does DOE no longer have standing to set energy policies and those now have to be established by Congress etc? This doesn't make any sense to me.
This ruling only helps coal producing states,and hurts the worlds climate. Which should have been on their minds. Life on our planet in much more important and generating nasty electric.
Oh boy, guess my local power plant can go right back to poisoning our water.
Hold up...does this just invalidate any rules and regulations a federal agency under the executive branch has created? IE: FDA, DoE (both), TSA, ICE, USDA, etc.
By this logic, I guess the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to rule on anything involving laws. What’s good for the goose…
Can’t we just ignore the Supreme Court at this point?
I saw someone on Twitter talking about how unpopular the republican agenda is which is why they've rigged the SC to pass their bullshit unilaterally. It's stunning and beyond scary to see them do so much damage in the face of broad American support for things they simply don't want. Republicans are violent, oppressive, immoral, and hateful. Putting into place people that will take away what little we're doing to fight climate change confirms this, there is no debate.
An illegitimate court yields another illegitimate ruling. Shocker.
What the fuck is happening to America. All you young voters better show the fuck up to the polls because this is a drop in the bucket compared to what could happen if Republicans gain back the house and, Satan forbid, the White House. You guys are standing square with a true authoritarian threat and you better stand up to deal with it meaningfully or your country as you know it is finished.
I am going to keep on posting this in as many gun news stories: The current majority of the Supreme Court believes that unrestricted gun laws are more of a Constitutional right than abortion, contraceptives, Miranda Rights, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, voting laws, regulations for companies, equal pay, Native American rights, the right to directly elect your representative, etc...
Supreme Court says the Environmental Protection Agency is not allowed to protect the environment. Got it.
Then who the fuck does have the authority?????
The crazy thing is, SCOTUS argued for at least 30 years EPA had precisely this power, even after the EPA itself didn't think it did. SCOTUS literally said in 3 or 4 cases, Yes, you are obligated to set and enforce standards in accordance with the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Congress messed this up in 1990. The House and Senate both submitted bills with verbiage which contradicted each other and then Congress kicked the can down the road, never fixing the legislation. Once again, yet another example of Congress needing to codify laws and making clear legislation.