The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.
People were speculating that this ruling would remove the federal government's ability to enforce regulatory rules made by any federal agency. EPA, SEC, FAA, and that this would deligitimize the supreme court because the government was not likely to abide the ruling and many agencies were planning to ignore the ruling.
I mean, what's stopping them from ignoring the court? The court doesn't have an army backing it up (and the Pentagon already has released statements opposing them), or a police force. It's all on paper, no?
read this from reason. com, which breaks it down fine. Obviously they think bad things are good but for describing the technical what-happened, it does that fine.
It dealt more with the correct statutory reading of the clean air act than with the constitutional nondelegation, which is what we were scared about, which is still going to come up at some point.
and tbh I think the decision is bad for consequentialist reasons, not because the reasoning is bad. Although when I read the dissent, I find myself agreeing with that too. I agree with whatever I read last :/
People were speculating that this ruling would remove the federal government's ability to enforce regulatory rules made by any federal agency. EPA, SEC, FAA, and that this would deligitimize the supreme court because the government was not likely to abide the ruling and many agencies were planning to ignore the ruling.
Is that still gonna happen?
I mean, what's stopping them from ignoring the court? The court doesn't have an army backing it up (and the Pentagon already has released statements opposing them), or a police force. It's all on paper, no?
My guess is that it will take at least one more court case, which will now be able to use this as precedent. Neat, huh?
It's actually a much more restrained ruling than people were expecting, and I would bet it's for exactly that reason.
no way theyd stand for this tbh
read this from reason. com, which breaks it down fine. Obviously they think bad things are good but for describing the technical what-happened, it does that fine.
It dealt more with the correct statutory reading of the clean air act than with the constitutional nondelegation, which is what we were scared about, which is still going to come up at some point.
and tbh I think the decision is bad for consequentialist reasons, not because the reasoning is bad. Although when I read the dissent, I find myself agreeing with that too. I agree with whatever I read last :/