The Supremes

[Js1 85,331]

7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Can someone elaborate in practical terms on why it's a bigger disaster?

EPA won't be able to regulate emissions.  Up to Congress (HA!) 

SCOTUS saying a government agency doesn't have authority to do something it was created to do for *reasons* 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Js1

[tx 3 putt 76,952]

17 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm just telling you--if you think what the Court has done thus far is a disaster, wait until tomorrow's decision in the EPA case.

it comes tumbling down tomorrow 

[DixonHur 11,303]

8 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Can someone elaborate in practical terms on why it's a bigger disaster?

[Bateshorn 9,927]

16 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm just telling you--if you think what the Court has done thus far is a disaster, wait until tomorrow's decision in the EPA case.

This.  Kav is going to revert the ability of Congress to delegate to agencies to a pre 1933 state, if not pre 1860.

[Pig Bellmont 8,718]

10 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Can someone elaborate in practical terms on why it's a bigger disaster?

Quote

The case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, hinges on a technical provision of the Clean Air Act, but much of the argument focused on two broader themes: whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute at all and, if so, whether the lower court’s decision violates the “major questions” doctrine — the idea that if Congress wants to give an administrative agency the power to make “decisions of vast economic and political significance,” it must say so clearly. A ruling that adopts an expansive interpretation of the major-questions doctrine – as some conservative groups are advocating – could curtail the regulatory scope not just of the EPA but many other federal agencies as well

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/in-climate-change-case-justices-grapple-with-epas-role-congressional-intent-and-their-own-jurisdiction/

[Chad Fuck 17,680]

And this will be followed as quickly as possible by a decision taking away any remedies for plaintiffs.

You want clean air and water? Lulz.

[chainsaw 9,867]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/in-climate-change-case-justices-grapple-with-epas-role-congressional-intent-and-their-own-jurisdiction/

That seems kind of theoretical to me. Other than a bunch of pollution, what will that mean on the ground?

[Bateshorn 9,927]

Yeah, they are going to set up for challenges to almost any regulation on the book.  The 5th is going to be busy AF next fall and winter gutting entire agencies of any reason to exist.

[Pig Bellmont 8,718]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

That seems kind of theoretical to me. Other than a bunch of pollution, what will that mean on the ground?

All executive agencies are going to be handcuffed from actual rule making and enforcement. 

[Bateshorn 9,927]

Just now, chainsaw said:

That seems kind of theoretical to me. Other than a bunch of pollution, what will that mean on the ground?

The "Major Questions" doctrine is a) completely made up, but more importantley b)basically posits that unless Congress prescriptively tells an agency exactly what to do, in detail, the agency doesn't have the authority to do it.   Virtually our entire regulatory state is based on the the opening clause of every law "The Secretary of (x) shall.." 

The Supremes are going to say that whatever comes after that better lay it out in minute detail or the agency can't do it.   Kavanaugh has had a hard on for Chevron his whole career.

 

[bolverk 29,671]

Bannon made it clear that their goal was the "deconstruction of the administrative state."

[DDD Dad 14,339]

28 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Can someone elaborate in practical terms on why it's a bigger disaster?

Well for starters it will essentially eviscerate the executive/administrative branch's regulatory authority.  Administrative agencies will no longer be afforded "Chevron deference" when regulations are challenged as falling outside the scope of legislative authority granted to them for rulemaking.

[chainsaw 9,867]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Well for starters it will essentially eviscerate the executive/administrative branch's regulatory authority.  Administrative agencies will no longer be afforded "Chevron deference" when regulations are challenged as falling outside the scope of legislative authority granted to them for rulemaking.

I understand the principle, but I am not seeing where rubber meets road in the way I see it with abortion being illegal.

[tchookem 3,900]

Please provide proof. You keep giving vague answers. Until you can prove it, it didn't happen. And, let's presume it did happen, you're talking about a "well known private school" which is a place that parents voluntarily pay to send their children based on a curriculum that they want their children to be taught.

Must not that "well known" if icono can't even name the school.

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

27 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Can someone elaborate in practical terms on why it's a bigger disaster?

It is the destruction of the entire executive branch, save and except the Executive Office of the President.

20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

EPA won't be able to regulate emissions.  Up to Congress (HA!) 

SCOTUS saying a government agency doesn't have authority to do something it was created to do for *reasons* 

It's not just the EPA.  It's every regulatory agency.

Congress didn't tell the FAA how to certify a plane or airline; therefore, all FAA regulation is unconstitutional.  Congress didn't tell the FDA how to certify drugs; therefore, all FDA regulation is unconstitutional.  Congress didn't tell the SEC how to do very much of anything; therefore, all regulation of the stock market is unconstitutional (we've already seen that from the Fifth Circuit).

15 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

That seems kind of theoretical to me. Other than a bunch of pollution, what will that mean on the ground?

Do you like flying safe airplanes or taking safe drugs or drinking clean water?  Because you can say goodbye to all those things tomorrow.

[wildcat09 29,354]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

I understand the principle, but I am not seeing where rubber meets road in the way I see it with abortion being illegal.

The worst case scenario opinion would render virtually all administrative rules void.

[lemonlime 5,503]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I understand the principle, but I am not seeing where rubber meets road in the way I see it with abortion being illegal.

It's not as obvious a point as with Roe, and a lot depends on how extreme SCOTUS is in its decision, though no reason to believe they won't burn down the government.  But the executive's regulatory authority is huge currently, and most safety and health safeguards would potentially be gutted.  For example and off the top of my head:

Anything to do with the environment, emissions, pollution

Workplace safety--OSHA and Div. of Labor

safe food and medicine - the FDA

EEOC 

And on and on.  It'll be a shitshow.

[Biff Tannen 45,683]

[WhatTheBuck 28,781]

What’s the worst that could happen?

That’s what will happen.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,672]

12 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Bannon made it clear that their goal was the "deconstruction of the administrative state."

Yep. I remember that well. 

What I don't completely get is how the elites truly benefit when everything is in shambles. Sure, profit from unfettered capitalism, but there's a tipping point at which they should remember they have to live here too. 

[tchookem 3,900]

What’s the worst that could happen?
That’s what will happen.

What would an asshole do?
That's what we're doing.

[kevwun 15,787]

dp..

Edited June 29, 2022 by kevwun

[kevwun 15,787]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What’s the worst that could happen?

That’s what will happen.

and it will somehow manage to be worse.

[DixonHur 11,303]

2 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Yep. I remember that well. 

What I don't completely get is how the elites truly benefit when everything is in shambles. Sure, profit from unfettered capitalism, but there's a tipping point at which they should remember they have to live here too. 

Do they, though?

[David Dennison 18,856]

27 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

All executive agencies are going to be handcuffed from actual rule making and enforcement. 

Which brings us to: why does the Executive Branch have to listen to the Supreme Court?

[kevwun 15,787]

There's always a tipping point.  How far away it is is up for debate.

[lemonlime 5,503]

3 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Yep. I remember that well. 

What I don't completely get is how the elites truly benefit when everything is in shambles. Sure, profit from unfettered capitalism, but there's a tipping point at which they should remember they have to live here too. 

Money and power.  They keep making money, with no oversight of their fraud, and no regulations they have to follow.  And they live in their private fortresses, without worries about the safety of their own tap water.  Meanwhile, 2024 comes around, with air pollution, unsafe drinking water,  no workplace safety measures, and on and on,  and the rubes who are either brainwashed by Fox or paying attention only to the Depp/Heard trial but are pissed about their family being killed by toxic "medication" no longer subject to FDA approval, votes for the GQP, while other votes are being suppressed. 

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Which brings us to: why does the Executive Branch have to listen to the Supreme Court?

Because it wants its orders enforced.  If the EPA can't enforce any order it issues, then what's the point of issuing the order?

[sidis 9,828]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

Because it wants its orders enforced.  If the EPA can't enforce any order it issues, then what's the point of issuing the order?

well we RECOMMENDED that these companies not dispose of lead in the city's water supply...what else do you want us to do people of the united states?  i'd recommend you discuss this with clarence and sam.

luckily we have never had these types of problems before so i doubt it is anything to worry about.

[immamac 42,850]

Basically the problem is the legislative body isn't legislating.

[David Dennison 18,856]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Because it wants its orders enforced.  If the EPA can't enforce any order it issues, then what's the point of issuing the order?

Look for methods of extra-judicial enforcement. Get creative.

[chainsaw 9,867]

So the impact is that any regulation can be ignored.

[DixonHur 11,303]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Look for methods of extra-judicial enforcement. Get creative.

[elfenix 34,238]

12 minutes ago, immamac said:

Basically the problem is the legislative body isn't legislating.

no, not really.  even if congress were a functional body it doesn't have the time or knowledge to determine just how many parts per billion benzene can be released into the atmosphere from a chemical plant before everyone gets cancer, how to decide where to measure that emission, etc.  or how many cherries must be in a fruit cocktail cup to be called fruit cocktail.  that's why congress sets goals generally and then tells the executive to figure out how to get there. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by elfenix

[DDD Dad 14,339]

19 minutes ago, kevwun said:

and it will somehow manage to be worse.

[sidis 9,828]

Just now, chainsaw said:

So the impact is that any regulation can be ignored.

if it is by a federal agency, then essentially yes.  the regulations, instead of being instituted by agencies, would have to be instituted by legislative action to be enforced.

for example, something as simple as anti-discrimination policies from dept. of housing and urban development in hud regulations could be completely ignored.  if mississippi and arkansas want to keep certain people from getting housing, they could do so unless their state legislature legislates a law prohibiting it.

federal emission standards, fda standards, food safety measures, water quality standards, enforcement of the clean air act, and on and on and on.

gone.  each state can do whatever the fuck it wants.

[Bateshorn 9,927]

7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

no, not really.  even if congress were a functional body it doesn't have the time or knowledge to determine just how many parts per billion benzene can be released into the atmosphere from a chemical plant before everyone gets cancer, how to decide where to measure that emission, etc.  or how many cherries must be in a fruit cocktail cup to be called fruit cocktail.  that's why congress sets goals generally and then tells the executive to figure out how to get there. 

This.  The Pre New Deal regulatory state is a sorta an interesting thought piece, but a modern industrial economy can't run without a strong and functional executive branch.

Copy of Leviathan out front shoulda told ya.

[lemonlime 5,503]

21 minutes ago, immamac said:

Basically the problem is the legislative body isn't legislating.

Yes, in part.  But do you really want to get on a passenger jet that was certified for commercial flight based on guidelines developed by a group of laypeople that includes rocket surgeons such as MTG as opposed to engineers with flight experience at the FAA?  

[royiv 9,310]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

Yes, in part.  But do you really want to get on a passenger jet that was certified for commercial flight based on guidelines developed by a group of laypeople that includes rocket surgeons such as MTG as opposed to engineers with flight experience at the FAA?  

The certification of the 737MAX program would look like a professional operation in comparison.

[elfenix 34,238]

Just now, royiv said:

The certification of the 737MAX program would look like a professional operation in comparison.

it was a professional operation.  it was just that the professionals all worked for boeing.

[David Dennison 18,856]

The GOP is finally going to kill the EPA, isn't it?

[elfenix 34,238]

Just now, David Dennison said:

The GOP is finally going to kill the EPA, isn't it?

after creating it.

[royiv 9,310]

7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

it was a professional operation.  it was just that the professionals all worked for boeing.

Exactly.

[Chad Fuck 17,680]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The GOP is finally going to kill the EPA, isn't it?

It's going to kill all regulatory agencies.  That's the take away here.  

[Bateshorn 9,927]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The GOP is finally going to kill the EPA, isn't it?

Yes. Cross border pollution is about to become a very real thing.

[immamac 42,850]

24 minutes ago, elfenix said:

no, not really.  even if congress were a functional body it doesn't have the time or knowledge to determine just how many parts per billion benzene can be released into the atmosphere from a chemical plant before everyone gets cancer, how to decide where to measure that emission, etc.  or how many cherries must be in a fruit cocktail cup to be called fruit cocktail.  that's why congress sets goals generally and then tells the executive to figure out how to get there. 

Congress can just add a constitutional amendment saying "this executive branch thing can do what it needs to do" - it's possible with legislature. 

[David Dennison 18,856]

3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

It's going to kill all regulatory agencies.  That's the take away here.  

For some reason their animosity for the EPA stands out in my mind. 

[elfenix 34,238]

Just now, immamac said:

Congress can just add a constitutional amendment saying "this executive branch thing can do what it needs to do" - it's possible with legislature. 

[Pig Bellmont 8,718]

Assuming the EPA decision is fucked - Congress should codify the entire FAR and then create bounties or SB8 private rights of action for anyone to sue to enforce the laws.  
 

They’ve already set a precedent that even if a law is unconstitutional there’s no standing to prevent the individual civil suits. I’m betting things get reconsidered pretty fast

[jimmyjazz 45,938]

54 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It is the destruction of the entire executive branch, save and except the Executive Office of the President.

It's not just the EPA.  It's every regulatory agency.

Congress didn't tell the FAA how to certify a plane or airline; therefore, all FAA regulation is unconstitutional.  Congress didn't tell the FDA how to certify drugs; therefore, all FDA regulation is unconstitutional.  Congress didn't tell the SEC how to do very much of anything; therefore, all regulation of the stock market is unconstitutional (we've already seen that from the Fifth Circuit).

Do you like flying safe airplanes or taking safe drugs or drinking clean water?  Because you can say goodbye to all those things tomorrow.

What in the holy hell is going on around here?