Supreme Court might destroy voting rights.

[TheMysteriousGX]

No, see, it's constitutional that if a corporation comes up with a new and fucked of way of destroying swaths of the environment, we have to wait for congress to come back from break, sort out all their bribes, rile their canvases up with blatant, obvious lies, and never vote on a way to stop it because doing so is for communists.

 

[meiam]

Clock is ticking on packing the court, on current trend mid term will see the dem annihilated in congress/senate and their chance of keeping WH in 2024 is pretty low.

 

[Silvanus]

Clock is ticking on packing the court, on current trend mid term will see the dem annihilated in congress/senate and their chance of keeping WH in 2024 is pretty low.

"X have made no progress at all in addressing the problem! Let's turn to the ones who created the problem, instead" -- middle America.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Clock is ticking on packing the court, on current trend mid term will see the dem annihilated in congress/senate and their chance of keeping WH in 2024 is pretty low.

One would think the nonsense the Supreme Court, which is majority Republican, is pulling now would hurt the chances of the Republicans with midterms. Of course, the Republicans are just going to deflect blame like politicians always do.

"X have made no progress at all in addressing the problem! Let's turn to the ones who created the problem, instead" -- middle America.

The fact that we're limited to such binary choices for our representatives in this country is what led to this kind of situation. I honestly don't care if anyone is the most diehard Republican or Democrat that ever lived, the fact is that neither are good and the only difference between them is what flavor of bad they are. That said, when both Clinton and Obama were in office daily life had nothing of significance actually seem to happen while when Bush and Trump were both in office things seemed to go to hell. Bush had the 9/11 attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and 2 wars started while Trump had COVID effectively shut the country down all while being as much of an embarrassment to the office of the Presidency as humanly possible.

What we need are third party candidates that A. Actually give a damn about the country instead of just lining their own pockets B. Get off their butts and actually do things that improve the country as a whole as is the actual job of every politician and C. Are actually viable as options.

Of course, making pigs fly is far more likely than even one of those things will ever be.

 

[tstorm823]

So you believe executive orders to be illegal, do you?

And federal agencies that have been explicitly granted powers to pursue methodology as they see fit-- such as the FBI-- must also act solely within parameters specifically written in a Congressional bill somewhere?

This very obviously isn't the case.

Many executive orders are questionably legal and should probably not exist.

If an executive order is made to do something that Congress explicitly voted against, I would say that is unambiguously illegal, and don't know why anyone would defend it.

 

[meiam]

One would think the nonsense the Supreme Court, which is majority Republican, is pulling now would hurt the chances of the Republicans with midterms. Of course, the Republicans are just going to deflect blame like politicians always do.

Most people don't really follow the news that closely and have a very poor understanding of the various level in the government, I don't think they'll lose a single vote over this. Similarly I don't the dem would lose a single vote over packing the court, and more importantly if they hurry up they could use the packed court to fix the election system so that the rep don't have a massive advantages.

But they'll do nothing and Trump will return in 2024 with congress/senate/supreme court and most state in GOP control.

 

[Silvanus]

The fact that we're limited to such binary choices for our representatives in this country is what led to this kind of situation. I honestly don't care if anyone is the most diehard Republican or Democrat that ever lived, the fact is that neither are good and the only difference between them is what flavor of bad they are.

And also the severity of the bad.

Many executive orders are questionably legal and should probably not exist.

If an executive order is made to do something that Congress explicitly voted against, I would say that is unambiguously illegal, and don't know why anyone would defend it.

"Many", "questionably". OK. So we've already established that the executive does not merely exist to enforce what Congress has explicitly directed it to do.

If Congress don't vote to do something, that is not the same thing as voting to make that thing illegal. That's really all there is to it.

You'll notice that Congress also didn't vote to do what SCOTUS has chosen to rule. Yet you seem to be fine with SCOTUS- a wholly unelected body, unlike the executive branch- taking those decision-making powers for itself.

 

[tstorm823]

"Many", "questionably". OK. So we've already established that the executive does not merely exist to enforce what Congress has explicitly directed it to do.

Only if you think executive orders can only exist contrary to legislative action. Many executive orders exist in line with the legislation. This one was not in line with the legislative history.

If Congress don't vote to do something, that is not the same thing as voting to make that thing illegal. That's really all there is to it.

But they didn't just not vote to do it. They took a vote (multiple votes) on exactly that action and voted it down. What the hell kind of system would it be if the people making the laws voted against doing something, the people enforcing them did the thing anyway, and the court couldn't intervene?

 

[Eacaraxe]

So, all this natter about last week's scrotus decision is pretty much meaningless. The EPA's been neutered in its capacity to regulate since Chevron in 1984; last week's decision doesn't really change anything. That's why environmental law for the past forty years has been a clusterfuck of torts, largely absent injunctions which would actually effect change.

It should be telling that one of the supposed "biggest policy wins" in environmental law since, was NAFTA chapter 11 and Environmental Side Agreement, the sum effect of which was...allowing polluters to successfully sue government in court to recoup losses from environmental regulation.

"X have made no progress at all in addressing the problem! Let's turn to the ones who created the problem, instead" -- middle America.

Man you're gonna be pissed if and when you figure out who was Reagan's EPA administrator, who changed the EPA's regulation policy opening the door for the EPA's regulatory capture, subsequent Chevron case, and neutering of the agency.

Neil Gorsuch's mother. Literally Neil Gorsuch's mother, Anne Gorsuch. And Democrats voted unanimously for that, including Joe Biden.

The grand irony?

What you mean is what is often called the "major questions" doctrine.

However, the major questions doctrine is something justices made up, with no definitions to explain such that they can apply it or not at their own whim, and which right wing justices are deplaying with increasing frequency and aggression. It's an ideological fad to serve political ends. There are other laws heading to SCOTUS along similar issues, and I expect we will see the same that SCOTUS will empower itself over the executive and to some extent legislature; although of course SCOTUS's appropriation of power in matters of governance are deployed for the empowerment of protecting state governments and the businesses.

That is basically that: SCOTUS has taken upon itself to decide matters of governance in a way it has not previously done. Its motivation is political ideology.

Last week's decision overturned Chevron. The exact thing milquetoast NIMBY shitlibs -- at least, those politically educated enough to know what Chevron is and why it's important (so, an ultra-minority) -- have been screaming for, for forty years.

There's a reason I keep saying "be careful what you wish for" when it comes to juridical democracy.

 

[Silvanus]

Man you're gonna be pissed if and when you figure out who was Reagan's EPA administrator, who changed the EPA's regulation policy opening the door for the EPA's regulatory capture, subsequent Chevron case, and neutering of the agency.

Neil Gorsuch's mother. Literally Neil Gorsuch's mother, Anne Gorsuch. And Democrats voted unanimously for that, including Joe Biden.

I mean, I'm pissed, but hardly surprised.

 

[Silvanus]

Only if you think executive orders can only exist contrary to legislative action. Many executive orders exist in line with the legislation. This one was not in line with the legislative history.

They exist and perform functions that are not explicitly already covered in Congressional legislation. Whether you call it "in line with" legislation, that's ultimately just a judgement call on your part. Decisionmaking power exists within the executive, and nobody seriously disputes this. It is not merely a law enforcement agency.

But they didn't just not vote to do it. They took a vote (multiple votes) on exactly that action and voted it down. What the hell kind of system would it be if the people making the laws voted against doing something, the people enforcing them did the thing anyway, and the court couldn't intervene?

By "voted it down", you still merely mean "didn't vote to do it". Which is utterly legally irrelevant to whether an agency is allowed to pursue that course.

I mean, fairly often, legislatures will vote against a measure specifically because they believe that other agencies already fulfil the role that the proposed legislation would. Under your logic, their votes would then render those agencies powerless. It's absurd.

 

[tstorm823]

I mean, fairly often, legislatures will vote against a measure specifically because they believe that other agencies already fulfil the role that the proposed legislation would. Under your logic, their votes would then render those agencies powerless. It's absurd.

No, they wouldn't, because they weren't voting on other agencies fulfilling that role. They voted on the EPA fulfilling that role and voted against it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

No, they wouldn't, because they weren't voting on other agencies fulfilling that role. They voted on the EPA fulfilling that role and voted against it.

Failing to pass legislation that is more specific neither repeals nor limits previous legislation. What does is passing legislation that repeals or limits previous legislation.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Clock is ticking on packing the court, on current trend mid term will see the dem annihilated in congress/senate and their chance of keeping WH in 2024 is pretty low.

I've actually look at some polls for midterms and the dems are a bit ahead of the Rep. It's hard to say how things were actually go but it would be funny if the Republicans lose midterms because of this. Thee Democratic party isn't giving left people a reason to vote but Republican sure the hell are.

 

[Silvanus]

No, they wouldn't, because they weren't voting on other agencies fulfilling that role. They voted on the EPA fulfilling that role and voted against it.

They simply never voted that the EPA should not have the power in question. That inarguably did not happen. That's really all there is to it.

Not voting for something is not the same thing.

 

[Trunkage]

Failing to pass legislation that is more specific neither repeals nor limits previous legislation. What does is passing legislation that repeals or limits previous legislation.

That's the whole point of this and what tstorm wants. To stop any legislation getting through

That's the definition of a conservative

 

[tstorm823]

They simply never voted that the EPA should not have the power in question. That inarguably did not happen. That's really all there is to it.

Not voting for something is not the same thing.

I cannot think of a single instance where the legislature voted affirmatively to prevent the executive branch from doing something. I'm sure it's happened, a lot of weird things happened specifically in the Reconstruction era, but that's not a normal thing. They don't pass bills banning executive actions, because that's not how our government is organized. It is not an "everything not prohibited is allowed" system. So like, of course they never voted that the EPA should not have that power, there are an infinite number of powers Congress has never actively voted that the EPA doesn't have. Because the EPA doesn't exist to do whatever they want so long as they haven't been told no, it exists to do what it was specifically directed to do.

 

[Silvanus]

I cannot think of a single instance where the legislature voted affirmatively to prevent the executive branch from doing something. I'm sure it's happened, a lot of weird things happened specifically in the Reconstruction era, but that's not a normal thing. They don't pass bills banning executive actions, because that's not how our government is organized. It is not an "everything not prohibited is allowed" system. So like, of course they never voted that the EPA should not have that power, there are an infinite number of powers Congress has never actively voted that the EPA doesn't have. Because the EPA doesn't exist to do whatever they want so long as they haven't been told no, it exists to do what it was specifically directed to do.

It exists to do what it was directed to do, and was explicitly given decision-making power over how to go about it.

Congress does not specifically instruct most federal agencies on how to fulfil their roles-- it transfers decision making power to them. By your logic, the FBI cannot decide to pursue investigation unless directed by Congress. The health service cannot decide what equipment or medicine goes where without bring directed by Congress.

 

[tstorm823]

Congress does not specifically instruct most federal agencies on how to fulfil their roles-- it transfers decision making power to them. By your logic, the FBI cannot decide to pursue investigation unless directed by Congress. The health service cannot decide what equipment or medicine goes where without bring directed by Congress.

The US code is not as vague as you're pretending it is. Look at this:

42 U.S. Code § 13103 - EPA activities

www.law.cornell.edu

That is the segment of the US code regarding pollution source reduction activities by the EPA. Of the 13 activities listed, 12 of them are about creating standard measurements, developing potential reduction strategies, and disseminating that information. No direct action in any of that. The 13th point creates an award for businesses that innovate in source reduction, which is the only direct incentive they have discretionary power over applying to businesses. The only point that comes close to suggesting they develop direct policies that could control businesses is point 10: "identify and make recommendations to Congress to eliminate barriers to source reduction including the use of incentives and disincentives".

It's not the EPA's job to create regulations on businesses. Hell, outside of a few specific pollutants given guidelines in the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, most pollution level issues are considered on the state level, following guidance by the EPA but ultimately determined and enforced by the states.

 

[Silvanus]

The US code is not as vague as you're pretending it is. Look at this:

42 U.S. Code § 13103 - EPA activities

www.law.cornell.edu

That is the segment of the US code regarding pollution source reduction activities by the EPA. Of the 13 activities listed, 12 of them are about creating standard measurements, developing potential reduction strategies, and disseminating that information. No direct action in any of that. The 13th point creates an award for businesses that innovate in source reduction, which is the only direct incentive they have discretionary power over applying to businesses. The only point that comes close to suggesting they develop direct policies that could control businesses is point 10: "identify and make recommendations to Congress to eliminate barriers to source reduction including the use of incentives and disincentives".

You haven't read very far, it would seem, or are selectively quoting. That is not where most of the EPA's current legal responsibilities are delineated, because their powers have expanded. The Clean Air Act specifically tasks the EPA with identifying the best "feasible" approaches for reducing Air pollutants like CO2.

It has never been repealed by a democratic body. But an unelected body has chosen to countermand it.

It's not the EPA's job to create regulations on businesses. Hell, outside of a few specific pollutants given guidelines in the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, most pollution level issues are considered on the state level, following guidance by the EPA but ultimately determined and enforced by the states.

"Outside of a few specific pollutants"? No. The Clean Air and Water Acts conveyed significant powers over pollution reduction broadly. From the former:

(c)State implementation and enforcement of standards of performance

(1)

Each State may develop and submit to the Administrator a procedure for implementing and enforcing standards of performance for new sources located in such State. If the Administrator finds the State procedure is adequate, he shall delegate to such State any authority he has under this chapter to implement and enforce such standards.

(2)

Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the Administrator from enforcing any applicable standard of performance under this section.

And what do you know-- the very same section specifies it's referring to "Any Air pollutant".