You quoted the section that explicitly said that standards are developed and enforced by each State, and think you've justified the EPA having unlimited powers. I'm content to leave the argument at that.
Supreme Court might destroy voting rights.
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Closing gitmo.
Took me about ten seconds to remember a single example of exactly that happening.
...developed and enforced by each state subject to EPA approval.
It's 2016 all over again...
Yes Obama was pretty bad. That doesn't mean you shit in your own bed. And it's incredibly stupid to complain about the smell when you made it
Congratulations. Thanks for cutting out the part of the post where I said that I'm sure it's happened but it isn't the norm. You did a great job missing the point.
EPA makes rule.
Supreme Court rules they lack the authority to make that rule.
You point to the EPA having say over approving state rule? That is not a counterpoint.
Honestly, Obama was president for 8 years and it was for the most part pretty quiet and nothing of significance really happened. That's about as good as we can expect out of our elected representatives at this point. Bush spent his 8 years getting us into 2 pointless wars the U.S. ended up getting nothing out of that put our country back into massive debt after it plummeted under Clinton, on top of being an all around incompetent idiot. Clinton's only issue being some scandals that didn't really effect anything. Then we had Trump go out of his way to epically fail at being president in every way possible to the point he made Bush look competent by comparison.
It's nutty that "nothing important happens" is the BEST we can hope for these days.
It literally says that the EPA has to approve what the states do. The state developing and enforcing their own standard is explicitly only allowed if the EPA agrees they're doing well enough.
You're "leaving the argument" at smugly pointing to something that directly contradicts your own point.
And nobody is arguing the EPA should have "unlimited" powers. They should have the powers that have been granted to them by Congress. The SCOTUS, an unelected body, has instead decided that it should have the power to direct national policy away from that, and you're fine with it because their ruling is in line with your personal sympathies.
Eacaraxe.... You seemingly have a photographic memory of law and government, saying you thought of that in ten seconds doesn't mean much when there's not a single person here with as good a memory for this stuff (Agema comes closest) as you have.
Decided in their designed role as arbitrator that this specific policy is beyond the powers granted to them by Congress.
I hate to be a downer, but the default state of man is authoritarianism, it's China, Russia, etc. That's why we have to try extra hard to avoid it. Most of the world is some form of an undemocratic democracy or a dictatorship including the US. Democracies are hard to keep. It has nothing to do with white people, men, or whatever. It has everything to do with the fact that the selection process for governments around the world is terrible. You need to either be a populist mouth-breather who wants a dictatorship of either left or right or a narcisstant elitist. The few who aren't either are outnumbered 100 to 1. It's people like Bernie Sanders and pro-democratic progressives who are once in a generation, and he happened to be in his political prime when neoliberalism, and Reaganism were strong, and the Cold War ended.
Yes. Despite everything they did being within scope of the language of the Acts, which allowed them to make such decisions themselves. An elected body made a decision, and an unelected body countermanded it due to a financial conflict of interest.
The only reason you're defending this is personal political sympathy.
You're projecting. The only reason you're attacking this is personal political sympathy. The language of US Code that calls for the census certainly would allow for a question about citizenship, and the question factually used to be on the census, but the Supreme Court tossed it when Trump wanted it added. Are you going to make the same argument in that case?
No, because the Commerce department lied about why it wanted the question, thus meaning the addition broke a separate law.
No such law exists that would limit the powers granted to the EPA by Congress. SCOTUS dreamt it up to reward party bankrollers.
Do you genuinely see no issue in the fact that the industry in question heavily subsidises the organisations to which the Justices pledge membership? That Justices are expected to dispense impartial rulings about the very people who finance them?
The issue I see is that this is the only standard you care about. You are starting with the conclusion that the Justice's are being paid to side with energy companies, and then rationalizing why the ruling was invalid. I don't think there is anything they or I could say to convince you otherwise. You don't like the result, you don't trust the people, the legal arguments are entirely irrelevant.
If the legal argument was employed consistently or in line with the legal role of the court, i wouldn't be finding issue with legality-- just morality.
But it's not consistent. It's not in line. That would be true regardless of whether they had enormous conflicts of interest, though the conflicts of interest do highlight the motives behind the inconsistency.
I can't help but notice that twice in a row now you've just chosen to entirely ignore the substance of my post-- firstly in pointing out that the Clean Air Act actually explicitly referred to all air pollutants, and secondly in probing whether you find financial conflicts of interest worrisome. Instead you've just retreated into personal accusations again.
Rather, that it took me approximately ten seconds to point out the first example off the top of my head is pretty much case example it happens far more than you seem to think it does.
Yes, that would in fact be how the federal government works.
So, funny story, show me where in the Constitution the Supreme Court actually has the authority to nullify federal law. As in, point out the exact cause granting the judiciary has that exact power.
You wanna play strict constructionism, so will I.
I would think Silvanus is trying to understand the logic of the legal argument because the legal arguments arent logical. If logic isn't driving it, look at who's driving the cases up to the supreme court
You mean I directly responded to this?
You can change your tune any time you want.
Congratulations. But you are notably not making the argument that it's normal operating procedure, nor are you arguing that the executive branch gets to do anything that Congress hasn't forbidden, so all you haven't said anything to convince me of anything other than "it has happened ", which I've already admitted.
I don't wanna play that.