The court can't even agree on how the EPA was proposing to structure regulations.
See full article...
See full article...
Supreme Court puts EPA’s plan to limit ozone emissions on hold
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
This court seems determined to strip the ability to do anything from a lot of federal agencies, repeatedly kicking it back to Congress to resolve.
The US bureaucracy may be bloated, but it is able to "get shit done" when it needs to happen.
Congress? Polar opposite. They'll sit on their hands til the whole thing devolves into anarchy before they act.
The US bureaucracy may be bloated, but it is able to "get shit done" when it needs to happen.
Congress? Polar opposite. They'll sit on their hands til the whole thing devolves into anarchy before they act.
Upvote
222
(228
/
-6)
I wonder how many Justices are going to get a "gratuity" for this ruling? (Besides Thomas of course, who will obviously get one)
Upvote
172
(189
/
-17)
So, as long as religion is kept out of it, Barrett can find a sensible, rational decision?
Upvote
136
(140
/
-4)
Oh, my friend, not even Congress is allowed to resolve some issues.
The success of preclearance led Congress to repeatedly include it in renewals of the Voting Rights Act. When the law was first passed, the preclearance provisions were set to sunset in 1970. However, their effectiveness prompted Congress to extend its operation four times, most recently in 2006, when renewal passed the House 390–33 and the Senate 98–0 before being signed into law by President George W. Bush.
Ultimately, it would be the Supreme Court, not Congress, that would put a pause to preclearance. In Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, the Court controversially invalidated the coverage formula used to determine what states and local governments were required to comply with the preclearance requirements.
Upvote
95
(100
/
-5)
I think they got her in there solely for Dobbs, but being a fundie means she's not willing to be a disingenuous stooge like the rest of them and that might have backfired a little bit. That or maybe she's just trying to get some "gifts" thrown her way.
Upvote
50
(63
/
-13)
That is a lot of litigation for what should be a relatively small and reasonable regulatory change.
Ozone is bad for your property values, people. It's bad for your kids and bad for your ERs and bad for so many reasons. It makes rich people want to move elsewhere too. Just clean up your mess.
Ozone is bad for your property values, people. It's bad for your kids and bad for your ERs and bad for so many reasons. It makes rich people want to move elsewhere too. Just clean up your mess.
Upvote
100
(102
/
-2)
I'm 100% in favor of the new rule. I live in an area that requires smog testing for personal automobiles, but it's a farce because even if the fleet became 100% EVs overnight we still wouldn't be in compliance with EPA ozone limits, there is so much pollution streaming at us from upwind that we can't possibly hit the existing target. As an asthmatic I'm very much in favor of the folks generating the pollution being forced to clean up or shut down their pollution sources (mostly coal power plants).
Upvote
105
(107
/
-2)
Upvote
9
(22
/
-13)
It has nothing to do with facts, data or evidence. It has to do with the inarguable fact that an article of faith on the right is that the EPA should be blocked from regulating long enough for them to destroy it. We should go back to the bad old days of spewing our effluent anywhere we want. It won't hurt anything.
I grew up in the Chattanooga area in the 60's when it was known as the worst air pollution in the country. That's because the city sits at the bottom of a bowl made from multiple mountains. My Dad went to work with an indoor shirt and an outdoor shirt which he changed accordingly. The outdoor shirt came home filthy. So did the car, which, on most days, you had to turn the headlights on in the middle of the day.
There are a lot of people alive today who think the air and water have always been clean and do not need protecting. We all know what happens to those who do not remember history.
This image is cloud-free. That's all smog. The bridges cross the Tennessee river in Chattanooga.
I grew up in the Chattanooga area in the 60's when it was known as the worst air pollution in the country. That's because the city sits at the bottom of a bowl made from multiple mountains. My Dad went to work with an indoor shirt and an outdoor shirt which he changed accordingly. The outdoor shirt came home filthy. So did the car, which, on most days, you had to turn the headlights on in the middle of the day.
There are a lot of people alive today who think the air and water have always been clean and do not need protecting. We all know what happens to those who do not remember history.
This image is cloud-free. That's all smog. The bridges cross the Tennessee river in Chattanooga.
Upvote
203
(206
/
-3)
This what our SCOTUS justices get tipped for, after all.
Roberts, the Federalist Society, and all their ilk, have been after the administrative state for decades, and they're going to bear much fruit.
Roberts, the Federalist Society, and all their ilk, have been after the administrative state for decades, and they're going to bear much fruit.
Upvote
58
(63
/
-5)
AmanoJyaku
Ars Praefectus
Yeah, that's the point. Conservatives don't want government, they want the government to grind to a halt. The resulting chaos will gift them the ability to enact more authoritarian laws, and further strip people of rights. And Congressional Republicans are down with that.
Upvote
70
(84
/
-14)
This bowl effect affects many metro areas around the county. Out west, the LA basin, Puget Sound basin, Salt Lake basin, and Phoenix metro are just a few examples.
Upvote
62
(62
/
0)
If you liked this, you'll love the prior ruling that basically rubber-stamped bribes as long as you pay the bribe after the favour's done and call it a "thank you" instead.
Last edited:
Upvote
88
(91
/
-3)
Next week: the CEO of The Illuminating Company buys Clarence Thomas a new "Motor Coach."
Upvote
12
(24
/
-12)
I am all for environmental regulations. I am not for unelected federal agencies deciding interstate behavior.
So you're actually for fucking nothing, because - and I really just don't know how to tell you this - pollution doesn't actually respect our imaginary boundaries.
Upvote
170
(177
/
-7)
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
You want Lauren Bobart, Margery Taylor Greene and the rest of the low rent idiots in Congress to legislate topics with physics and chemistry? So you would be happy with a law stating π equals 3.0? Repeal the law of gravity because it's too much of a drag?
A brick wall could out think Congress four days out of five. Be happy with what you have.
Upvote
83
(95
/
-12)
That doesn't work when the legislature is over-represented by a subset of people because of how representation is calculated. That each citizen of Wyoming has 66x the representation of each citizen of California in the Senate is a problem. That gerrymandering gives more representation to rural areas in the House is a problem. That the 60 vote filibuster even exists in the Senate is a problem.
Because that subset of people want the US to return to the fictionalized world of Leave It To Beaver and the Golden '50s that Fox News tells them they can have if they vote.
Upvote
76
(85
/
-9)
Make the justices who decide to shut down regulatory agencies live in the areas affected by the policies that the regulatory agencies enacted to try to improve the health, welfare and safety of the people living in those areas.
That way, they suffer the consequences of their decisions.
Upvote
26
(29
/
-3)
So each and every member of congress is supposed to suddenly become an expert in every single scientific subject and make laws that reflect that expertise?
Stop. Administrations like the EPA were created specifically because congress (even if they were not deadlocked by idiotic political divisions) cannot act fast enough and with enough detail to keep current with things like environmental issues.
Edit: fixed my copy/paste error!
Upvote
115
(119
/
-4)
Last edited:
Upvote
46
(46
/
0)
The Sheep Look Up
Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
Here's the thing: Congress has the power to tell the Supremes no. They can literally pass a law and include a clause that says, "Oh, and this isn't under the purview of judicial review." They never will. They're all spineless cowards.
Oh you sweet summer child. Congresscritters are actively incentivized not to do that. You put your marker down, you're responsible for the positive action you just took. You speechify and pound the desk. If you're in the majority, you shake your fist at the minority and how they obstruct you at every turn. If you're in the minority you decry the perfidy of the majority and lament how much better it would be if you were in charge. Merry go round goes round. You would have to throw out the system, not the people. Tell me, how do you get the status quo to unmake itself?
Upvote
4
(20
/
-16)
Wow, she displayed a scientific sensibility.
Those, at least most?, can get fired or at least re-assigned.
Upvote
11
(13
/
-2)
This Supreme Court is illegitimate since many of them were chosen by a president who committed fraud in order to win the presidency
These justices should be impeached and all decisions voided
These justices should be impeached and all decisions voided
Upvote
6
(27
/
-21)
Because paper-shuffling, rule-following bureaucrats are so much worse than truncheon-welding, uniformed jack-boots, amiright?
Upvote
-14
(11
/
-25)
Why act at that point? What you consider to be "anarchy" might actually be their goal.
^ The Purge: Election Year
That's a film produced by Michael Bay, by the way, not exactly a lib.
Upvote
10
(13
/
-3)
You mean like NEPA or the Clean Air Act?
The EPA derives its authority to operate from Congress, which is full of elected representatives (you know, ostensibly). There is no functional way to regulate anything without delegating such authority to agencies with expertise, making your request an impossibility. Killing chevron just means going back to the gilded age in all but name, and I'm not going to pretend you don't know exactly that.
Upvote
72
(76
/
-4)
This reminds me of Missouri vs Illinois where in 1908 MI sued because Chicago was dumping so much waste into the Mississippi River it was ending up in Missouri. The case landed at the Supreme Court, but I think the court failed to reach a definitive decision because Chicago had cleaned up its act by then. Wishing I could find a less legalese recounting if the story.
Last edited:
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
This is the same kind of "thinking" that leads to elected politicians deciding whether women can get the medical care they need, instead of having the medical community decide such trivial matters.
Upvote
61
(65
/
-4)
Turns out, it IS THAT HARD... when you've got a system setup to encourage only two parties.
You need significant reform of the election system if you want our Congress to become functional again. Essentially, you can think of Congress today as being run by a bunch of MBA's. Except, unlike other businesses, they're engaged in a successful duopoly reinforced both by state election law generally, but VERY specifically our first-past-the-post system. That first-past-the-post system encourages you to vote strategically instead of identifying the best of many options aligned with your views (think about why no one votes 3rd party even though 3rd parties are eternally popular... it's because you only get to punch ONE ticket). For a start, you'd need ranked choice voting, if you want to undo this nasty system and get Congress back to work. That way, you could vote for your 3rd party candidate as your first preference, and when they fail, your vote gets reallocated to your second choice... your vote still counts, in other words, and you are not forced to "vote strategically".
Upvote
28
(33
/
-5)