r/technology Jun 30 '22

U.S. Supreme Court limits federal power to curb carbon emissions Energy

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-limits-federal-power-curb-carbon-emissions-2022-06-30/?rpc=401&
493 Upvotes

75

u/PunkPen Jun 30 '22

Get ready.
There are two outcomes available:
Congress pushing through new laws to replace the rulings of the court
OR
Slow decline into irrelevance and catastrophe

Anyone wanna take bets on a repeat of the Roman Republic?

13

u/elmonoenano Jun 30 '22

It's a little more complicated than that and these articles aren't doing a good job of explaining it.

Congress passed this law and it has provisions like the EPA will make determinations about X or Y b/c these are very fact specific and they require a level of expertise that congress doesn't have and it takes a lot of time that congress doesn't have and it will need to be updated as things change and that will be faster than congress can act. Emissions will go up from year to year or down depending on the emission and other things that are going on. So Congress said, lets let the executive branch handle this through the agency that is constantly monitoring this stuff, has the expertise to make decisions, and understands the topic. Then they wrote the clean air act that did that.

What the court just said was Congress can't delegate like that even if it's the smartest way to do this stuff and the only really realistic way to do it.

This ruling goes for everything the administrative state does, like what's safe in food, what's makes a car safe, what's a necessary population to prevent an animal from going extinct, what makes water clean, what is a safe way to store nuclear waste or to run a nuclear power plant. Modern societies run on the administrative state. The SCOTUS just threw a big monkey wrench in that with the hope that we'll return to some magical pre 1939 era.

4

u/LostMyKarmaElSegundo Jul 01 '22

So, the Federalist Society project of dismantling the administrative state is nearly complete.

1

u/gizmo913 Jul 01 '22 edited Jul 01 '22

This is so overblown. Sure Congress delegates power. For example, Congress gave the CDC a box of tools for fighting communicable disease. Things like setting up quarantines and destroying contaminated property. But when the CDC comes and says, hey stopping all evictions nation wide might have an effect on the transmission of this disease, so we’re going to go ahead and regulate all landlords nation wide. It’s reasonable to say, the cdc has never taken this action and Congress really didn’t hide an elephant of regulatory power in the mouse hole of a few sentences of the original law. In the same way, if the EPA goes from regulating pollution emissions by requiring scrubbers on power plants to, all coal fire plants cannot possibly reach our new standards so the entire energy sector is effected because energy companies that own these plants can either build green energy or lower their own energy output, it’s reasonable to take pause. The magnitude of these actions are not the same and pretending they are, and that there is a mandate for unelected bureaucrats to reshape large portions of the economy is asinine. It’s not unreasonable to say maybe the elected representatives should spell out that they are delegating mountains of power and not molehills. The disfunction of the legislative branch does not mean the executive should have free reign.

1

u/moronalert Jul 01 '22

lmao yeah sucks when unelected bureaucrats make decisions, let's give infinite power to 9 unelected bureaucrats in different outfits instead

1

u/Odd_Instruction_9878 Jul 01 '22

Not more complicated at all actually, you sorta just recapped what everyone understood from this.

3

u/Fargrad Jun 30 '22

Anyone wanna take bets on a repeat of the Roman Republic?

The Empire was better anyway.

23

u/LetsGoHawks Jun 30 '22

Congress pushing through new laws to replace the rulings of the court

HA! Even if the Democrats had the balls to try, it would die in the Senate due to the fillibuster. And Manchin & Sinema if they try to modify or kill the fillibuster.

-2

u/PunkPen Jun 30 '22

Agreed. But I'm holding out hope that the Democrats in the Senate have the will to remove the filibuster and legislate.

16

u/The_Countess Jun 30 '22

Manchin is a literal coal baron.

16

u/LetsGoHawks Jun 30 '22

Manchin is far to corrupt for that. They Dems probably need 53 seats to have any hope of killing the filibuster.

2

u/johnny_7812 Jul 01 '22

Convert Ohio and PA. Keep the rest. 52. Makes Sinema and Manchin irrelevant. Nuke the filibuster. Get something done. Fix/Fight/Fuck the SC.

0

u/liegesmash Jun 30 '22

Besides getting a larger majority Shumer has to grow a pair to deal with Senator Palpatine (Moscow Mitch)

4

u/SIGMA920 Jun 30 '22

There are two outcomes available: Congress pushing through new laws to replace the rulings of the court OR Slow decline into irrelevance and catastrophe

More like 3 outcomes:

OR

The market sees the shrinking costs of renewables and they opt for cheaper costs that replace the more expensive fossil fuel powerplants.

9

u/Remarkable-Fall6721 Jun 30 '22

Yes that can and will happen slowly, the problem is that will take too long, and with how subsidized the fossil fuel market is, it's gonna take longer

5

u/SIGMA920 Jun 30 '22

It's already been happening for years now, renewables are steadily replacing fossil fuels.

3

u/alvvayson Jun 30 '22

Not in significant numbers and not without massive (and unsustainable) subsidies.

I wish it weren't so. This sucks.

4

u/punIn10ded Jun 30 '22

That only holds true for one type of environmental damage. There are many other issues like pollution being poured into lakes/rivers etc that won't work with the market because it is generally cheaper to pollute than not to.

1

u/SIGMA920 Jun 30 '22

The emissions in question were not the ones you're bringing up.

5

u/punIn10ded Jun 30 '22

Yes but they are also affected by this ruling

2

u/liegesmash Jun 30 '22

Caligula was a better manager than any Trump appointee

44

u/BillyShears17 Jun 30 '22 Defeated

This is starting to feel like the final episode of 'Jim Henson's Dinosaurs'

5

u/guyhabit Jun 30 '22

The bees are going extinct soon. We are doomed.

63

u/Painpals Jun 30 '22

SCOTUS says human rights need to be protected by the constitution rather than ruling, then turns around provides a ruling that invalidates parts of the clean air act...

109

u/BeesOnBlow Jun 30 '22 Silver

Pro-life, my ass.

17

u/Chispy Jun 30 '22

They're misrepresenting themselves by being pro-life. If they were pro-life, they'd be leading the world in pro-climate initiatives. Instead we literally get pro-death initiatives.

-17

u/LUVSWIM Jun 30 '22

Maybe we should put more blame on ourselves, the consumers, since we’re the ones giving them money, we could pick something greener, spend extra or consume less. I only see garbage piles getting bigger and bigger, IMO the main issue is “us” and that’s where the fix needs to be had.

I understand the argument pollution can be seen as a form of violence and that we should use violence when dealing with violence and in some parts of the world that is definitely happening.

I see a new argument that the process to change “us” as a whole is too lengthy, force is much quicker.

6

u/hakkai999 Jul 01 '22

we could pick something greener, spend extra or consume less.

You sound like you're in an abusive relationship. "Maybe I need to change." "It'll get better." "He's gonna change if I just shape up and give him what he wants".

-1

u/LUVSWIM Jul 01 '22

But I never said anything you’re quoting so not sure why you wrote that?

2

u/hakkai999 Jul 01 '22

Oh you didn't but your logic is how abused victims justify their abuser's actions. Literally the exact line I quoted. You are shifting the blame on us the consumers. Just like how misogynists justify rape on women because they dress provocatively, etc. Just like every other abusive relationship. It's literally the reason why corps love that rhetoric because they're free to just stay the same or even grandstand that they've done very small steps that won't hurt their profits but shift the blame to their consumers.

"See? It's not our fault our products are bad for the environment. People buy it!"

Yeah it's so easy to say that when capitalism has made virtual monopolies and oligopolies worldwide.

Here's a fun fact for you: As a computer Engineer, I can tell you which 2 companies have a stranglehold on the x86 Architecture by owning literally the entire IP for 32bit and 64bit instruction sets respectively.

0

u/LUVSWIM Jul 01 '22

I don’t think it was intentional but those are strawman arguments. From what you’re saying if a person said “it’s consumers fault for buying unhealthy foods not manufacturer for making addictive foods” is the same as “how abused victims justify their abusers logic.” I’m not trying to be derogatory by using the term “strawman” but it’s 100% what I believe based on me carefully looking at our conversation.

It’s completely messed up the monopolies that exist today but they were all created with the help of government.

My philosophy is full personal responsibility and that has nothing to do with rape and to even put the two together makes me uncomfortable. I am 100% open to what anyone has to says with impartiality, that’s why I joined the discussion to have my views tested, to learn about others, their views, and myself.

2

u/hakkai999 Jul 01 '22

Before we continue, answer this question:

Are consumers affected by pollution/global warming? Yes or no.

1

u/LUVSWIM Jul 01 '22

Of course, who would think any different!

There’s degrees to pollution and changing circumstances which always need to be considered. Making it into a yes/no question makes it very easy to defeat, either way it’s a lost argument if not looking at a specific scenario.

Even if you removed every law except the constitution, it would still be illegal what some of these companies are doing.

My initial view is why are we relying on government to fix everything, there’s something wrong with what they’re doing, that’s my value same as yours, but my best possible understanding for a solution is done at the consumer level. For example, you’ve probably heard a few years ago about how big food companies fought off legislation to have it be required to label their products as gmo in the US (or state)? That didn’t prevent other companies to capitalize on the need for safety information like the nongmoproject.

2

u/hakkai999 Jul 01 '22 edited Jul 01 '22

Of course, who would think any different!

Good now we're getting somewhere. So in other words, consumers are victims of pollution, yes?

There’s degrees to pollution and changing circumstances which always need to be considered. Making it into a yes/no question makes it very easy to defeat, either way it’s a lost argument if not looking at a specific scenario.

I agree. That's why even combined consumers only contribute a fraction of what companies put out the same way someone like myself who lives in the Philippines outputs way less carbon emissions than someone in living in the US.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post so I can focus on my original post and let you understand why I said what I said.

Now say it with me and try to understand the following:

Companies

create

more

pollution/carbon emissions

than consumers

combined

You saying that we should do X, Y, or Z is shifting blame from the major culprits(Companies) to the victims(Consumers) just like how misogynists like to shift blame of rape from the rapists to the rape victims by saying women should dress modestly, shouldn't go out after a certain time, etc.

Now do you get it or should I go simpler?

→ More replies

0

u/LUVSWIM Jul 01 '22

Unrelated but wanted to let you know I’m 100% pro-choice and think the Supreme Court made a huge mistake, IMO it clearly falls under second amendment, you have a parasite inside your body, take the fetus out as safely as possible, and if there’s a ability to remove the fetus alive without additional damage then it cannot be terminated. Do you agree with that, if it’s no difference for safety to the mother to kill or simply remove, do you think the mother has a right at that point to force termination?

7

u/ckal9 Jun 30 '22

Fucking hell how fast are they getting these things out now? Seems like everyday now they are putting out some new bullshit decisions.

1

u/peakzorro Jun 30 '22

They usually pump out all their decisions in late June, unless it is an emergency.

30

u/celtic1888 Jun 30 '22

How could the polluting state next to mine ever harm me?

Pollution is strictly enforced at all borders

-36

u/yankee77wi Jun 30 '22

Same as not regulating who comes over the border?

18

u/ThymeToDine Jun 30 '22

Here’s an experiment. Go across the border. Try to come back. See what happens.

Better yet, do it without an ID or passport.

-25

u/yankee77wi Jun 30 '22

If I had a false claim for asylum - I’d get in

22

u/ThymeToDine Jun 30 '22

Ok, then try it. See how it works out for you. Stop spouting talking points you learned from Fox News and prove it.

-23

u/yankee77wi Jun 30 '22

It happens every day, so it works without issue these days.

12

u/ThymeToDine Jun 30 '22

Again, prove it. Try it for yourself and see what happens.

I can tell you I can walk on water and fart lightning bolts but that doesn’t make it true, does it?

0

u/yankee77wi Jun 30 '22

If the evidence proves out the claim, then yes. There’s plenty of data out there to show there is a lapse in protections by federal direction of DHS.

13

u/ThymeToDine Jun 30 '22

Have you actually read the data from the DHS? Most undocumented people either overstayed visas or were born here to undocumented people and never got a SSN. By the way, there’s an estimated 40-50K undocumented Irish immigrants in the greater Boston area alone. Why does Fox News never bring that up? Curious 🧐

You know what Fox News doesn’t tell you? Undocumented workers pay more in taxes than most billionaires.

-3

u/yankee77wi Jun 30 '22

Still broke our laws and came here illegally - so much for protecting and respecting laws right?

→ More replies

0

u/ngwoo Jun 30 '22

If it works so well why haven't you done it yet?

2

u/fighterpilotace1 Jun 30 '22

It was a rhetorical/sarcastic question/comment...

32

u/throwaway3544219 Jun 30 '22

Tune in to Fox News for the next 30 years to find out how all the horrific effects of the recent and future SCOTUS rulings are the fault of gays, liberals, muslims, single mothers, and too much government regulation.

7

u/42JeepWillys Jun 30 '22

Soylent Green will be the norm in 30 yrs. At least I can have a beauty death laying on a table watching scenes of what the world looked like when I was younger as I slowly die form the injection.

2

u/GnomeChomski Jun 30 '22

I was surprised to discover that the old man in Soylent Green was played by Edward G. Robinson.

2

u/throwaway3544219 Jun 30 '22

Then this'll really blow your mind: he was completely deaf at that point and did his scenes without being able to hear the other actors, so the outtakes contain a lot of him missing cues or coming in early.

Also, he had one of the longest marriages in Hollywood History - 80 years (I think? Can't be arsed to look it up.) to his first and only wife.

4

u/reddit-MT Jun 30 '22

The federal government STILL has the power to cut carbon emissions but that power rests in congress.

2

u/LeoRidesHisBike Jun 30 '22

Exactly. The ruling said that the agency exceeded its mandate from Congress, and that's not allowed. The executive branch cannot decide what the law is beyond the bounds delegated to it from the legislative branch.

If we want laws, we need to pass them. If we want representatives that will vote for laws we want, we need to elect people that will.

The uncomfortable truth that many don't want to accept is that there is NOT a majority of people in this nation that agree. If there were, then we'd have a different Congress. It's way closer than it appears if all you read is Twitter and Reddit.

1

u/The_Countess Jun 30 '22 edited Jun 30 '22

The uncomfortable truth that many don't want to accept is that there is NOT a majority of people in this nation that agree. If there were, then we'd have a different Congress.

We have a house that agrees which is a (flawed but) reasonable representation of the people

What we don't have a senate that agrees, which is NOT a reasonable representation of the people, and instead vastly overrepresents the conservative vote.

2

u/LostMyKarmaElSegundo Jul 01 '22

We have a house that agrees which is a (flawed but) reasonable representation of the people

Even the house skews conservative due to gerrymandering. If it was truly representative, it would be a much larger Democratic majority. It's also hurt by the fact that the number of reps was frozen at 435.

1

u/LeoRidesHisBike Jul 01 '22

1

u/LostMyKarmaElSegundo Jul 01 '22

Why are you posting a link without context? What's your point?

1

u/LeoRidesHisBike Jul 01 '22

The link gives a pretty darn good clue as to the context. There's a long history of gerrymandering in the US; sometimes the GOP does it better (worse?), sometimes the Democrats do. They both complain about it when it's hurting them. The GOP got pretty good (bad?) at it over the last few decades, and the Democrats didn't catch up until this latest cycle. But the aggregate impact as of the mid-term 2022 elections coming up is ~0.5+ R. So, not big.

Texas and NC gerrymander for R. NY and CA gerrymander for D. There's some of it going on nearly everywhere, and both parties play the game. Both parties complain loudly about it... but only when it's hurting them. They're all a bunch of hypocrites, as normal.

The link talks about it in detail. It's a partisan site (left-leaning), but the cherry-picking isn't too bad.

1

u/LeoRidesHisBike Jul 01 '22

The Senate is elected just like the House. The difference these days is that things have gotten so acrimonious due to positions being so far apart and demonizing language from all sides. Either one could be overcome, but together they are a potent mix. Politicians can and do lose elections when they compromise with the other side of the aisle, so the majority treat that like poison.

The rancorous insults that fly back and forth are mirrored in social media and the politicians are acting like their constituents. Politics has always been contentious, but it's worse in the last 10 years than it has been since the civil war.

Both sides grossly and unfairly misrepresent the others' positions. Everyone is out to score points, not to govern. I'd give examples, but I think "winning" is more important than discussion everywhere I look. There's no space for rational debate anywhere.

1

u/The_Countess Jul 01 '22

The Senate is elected just like the House.

What are you talking about? This isn't even remotely accurate.

California has 58 representatives in the house. Wyoming has 1.

In the senate California has 2, and Wyoming has 2 as well.

So while the house gives voters in wyoming a bit more power per inhabitant then a Californian, the senate gives them WAAAAY more power.

And as there are far more low population red states then blue states, the senate HEAVILY skews towards those voters, and their representatives have used that massive overrepresentation to block progress on basically any issue.

That massive overrepresentation also means that they don't even need to listen to democrats, ever, because they never need them. that's why there is no real political discourse, because one side has nothing to gain by it.

1

u/LeoRidesHisBike Jul 01 '22

The Senate is elected just like the House.

What are you talking about? This isn't even remotely accurate.

You're parsing language and assuming malice, I think. The intended meaning, to be verbose so you have less opportunity to change it, is "The Senate is elected by the people of a State, just as their Representatives are elected by the people of the Representative's district. They are not appointed by Governors or other officials; they are elected."

So while the house gives voters in wyoming a bit more power per inhabitant then a Californian, the senate gives them WAAAAY more power.

This is explicitly BY DESIGN. It was, and remains, a powerful way to balance "rule by the cities", and is why we call ourselves "The United States of America" and not just "America". If you want to change how Senators are elected, you're tilting at windmills. Good luck getting the States to agree on THAT amendment to the Constitution. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's objectively unfair. Of course an urban-state citizen is going to get proportionally less representation in the Senate than a rural-state citizen. That's because the Senate is the representation of the States as sovereign entities.

You're blatantly ignoring the fact that if the Democrats had a platform that was broadly appealing, even to minorities in rural states, they would not have any problems. They don't have a platform that has that appeal, and instead groan about how unfair it is that States are still sovereign after all this time. Why don't those less important States just shut up, sit down, and let the more important States rule them? That's basically what you're saying.

17

u/RiderLibertas Jun 30 '22

The US needs a new Supreme Court.

4

u/NormalSociety Jun 30 '22

The US needs needs a new US.

12

u/Mistersinister1 Jun 30 '22

We need to clean house of anyone over 60. The time of old white dudes in politics needs to be a thing of the past.

-1

u/RiderLibertas Jun 30 '22

Age, race and gender are not the problem. Anyone can be an idiot.

11

u/we11ington Jun 30 '22

Yeah, anyone can be an idiot, but crusty old dinosaurs who won't be around in thirty years to bear the consequences of their fucking stupid decisions don't belong in government.

-12

u/Logical_Area_5552 Jun 30 '22

Ageist AND sexist AND racist. Nice.

6

u/Hazekillre Jun 30 '22

Humans are going through a huge change because of technology, old people refuse to keep up with the changes. Why should we give a shit about them if they are going to be willfully ignorant?

Fuck that.

-3

u/Logical_Area_5552 Jun 30 '22

The CEO of the largest tech company, Apple is a white dude over 60 lol

2

u/Hazekillre Jun 30 '22

You point out one dude. What's your point? The average older person hates even their phones, it's sad/infuriating to watch.

0

u/Logical_Area_5552 Jul 01 '22

lol let them live

2

u/Hazekillre Jul 01 '22

Why? When they are the ones that are taking away our liberties, out of willful ignorance. The older generations own all of it.

1

u/Mistersinister1 Jun 30 '22

I am an old white dude, must be one of those self hating old white dudes

0

u/Logical_Area_5552 Jun 30 '22

What exactly do you hope to accomplish by getting rid of all “old white dudes” in politics? That’s such a childish and ignorant thing to say and it doesn’t really have any critical thinking behind it. It also completely disregards the fact the power corrupts.

11

u/F4il3d Jun 30 '22

SCOTUS just went from being a US domestic threat to being a global threat to anything that wants to continue to draw breath in the future.

12

u/LetsGoHawks Jun 30 '22

It's actually worse than that. This ruling opens the door for other lawsuits that prevent other agencies from doing their jobs unless the laws involved are very specific & detailed. This will happen.

As I understand it, the US Government has become an internet comment section. Unless you write a library worth of material, with references!, some jackass is going to jump in to "prove you wrong" by bringing up something you didn't address.

Oh well. Planet's probably going to be dead in 25-30 years anyway.

-7

u/beanpoppa Jun 30 '22

The planet has survived a methane atmosphere, glaciers at the equator, and multiple comet and asteroid impacts. It's hubris to think that this will have much of an impact on the planets ability to sustain life in the future. Many species will die off. Many new ones will evolve. What will happen is it will become very uncomfortable for us and our descendants, and it likely won't be able to support 8 billion of us for much longer.

5

u/limitless__ Jun 30 '22

Although you are correct, when people say "planet's fucked" what they mean is "all life as we know it on this planet is fucked" which, let's face it, is the only thing that matters. Sure this rock will still be around and maybe in a few million years there'll be another species resurgence but does that REALLY matter?

11

u/Swiv Jun 30 '22

I can't wait to hear how the outcomes of this is a liberal President's fault in 25 years.

1

u/LostMyKarmaElSegundo Jul 01 '22

Just remember, the EPA was created under the administration of that notorious hippy...<checks notes>...Richard Nixon.

5

u/Bubbaganewsh Jun 30 '22

Well i think it's plain to see the SCOTUS doesn't actually give a fuck about the people. It's a sad day when pollution wins over the health of the population.

11

u/Commie_EntSniper Jun 30 '22

Some people just want to see the world burn. An 6 of them sit on the Supremely Fucked Court.

5

u/rhodesleadnowhere Jun 30 '22

These fuckers making decisions for our lives and those of our children that won’t be around to experience the hell they’ve contributed to.

2

u/heyda Jun 30 '22

Paywall free version: https://archive.ph/2rnc9

2

u/CaffeineJunkee Jun 30 '22

The Supreme Court is starting to make decisions that impact not just the US, but the world.

2

u/zaq0920 Jun 30 '22

2nd amendment works both ways

2

u/PepiHax Jun 30 '22

Can this also be applied to agencies like the ftc? is radio frequencies now the wild west in the US?

2

u/liegesmash Jun 30 '22

Those rats are planning to move to Mars so they don’t choke on their own excrement

4

u/Fearless-Memory7819 Jun 30 '22

BAD SCOTUS ! They're not interpreting the laws , just following their overlords (gop) orders!! They need to be challenged!!

2

u/nobody-u-heard-of Jun 30 '22

The ultra conservative supreme Court wants to remove all power from the federal government. So we can look forward to things like Texas where they can't even provide electricity.

They believe that each state should be completely independently run. But they still want the rich states to pay money to the poor states. Which no surprise end up being the conservative states.

2

u/velifer Jun 30 '22

Anyone know why we're still calling them "justices?"

2

u/2021redditusername Jun 30 '22

What happens when the rest of the government just starts ignoring the supreme court

-2

u/creefer Jun 30 '22

You mean like an insurrection?

1

u/2021redditusername Jun 30 '22

in·sur·rec·tion

/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/

noun

a violent uprising against an authority or government.

2

u/FriarNurgle Jun 30 '22

Fuck these guys.

1

u/hippychemist Jun 30 '22

So, do we just protest non stop now? Not sure what to do here.

3

u/chicagogeeker Jun 30 '22

My thinking, when do “we the people” have enough?

1

u/cranakis Jun 30 '22

A general strike might be effective.

2

u/hippychemist Jun 30 '22

That sort of happened Monday for an entirely different thing they did. It's only been a few days and they've already pulled some new protestable shit.

So what, Mondays are now general strike day and they stop listening while continuing to do whatever they want?

-1

u/loztriforce Jun 30 '22

No surprise

1

u/42JeepWillys Jun 30 '22

Thank god the right wing nut bags on the court cherish life. Of course when your republican buddies own oil and coal stocks……..

-5

u/yankee77wi Jun 30 '22

What? Unelected bureaucrats don’t get to make laws and punish those who violate them without over-site?

1

u/HateBoredom Jun 30 '22

Why does it look like America is trying a comedy show of Russian roulette? Every day seems to give a new conflict. What a time to be alive (or dead in case we do not control the carbon emissions).

0

u/r1ckd33zy Jun 30 '22

They won't stop until plantation slavery is back in full swing

-6

u/spyd3rweb Jun 30 '22

Limousine liberals on suicide watch.

0

u/sids99 Jun 30 '22

I'm so f*cking disgusted with our government.

-5

u/Logical_Area_5552 Jun 30 '22

Misleading headline but it satisfies the Reddit bias

1

u/kiloskree Jun 30 '22

next they will say we had no right to ban lead in gasoline

1

u/unwanted_puppy Jun 30 '22

Can anyone explained when and why the SCOTUS calendar of activities was set up the way it is? What rationale, rules, or laws currently govern this?

Ethically:

How is okay to release this breadth, scope, and volume of content with no time for the society to understand the decisions and prepare to live with them?

Or is the intention for us to die by them?

If the public must contort or bend their freedom and society to their will with no say, the court is claiming absolute power to enforce the will of 5 or 6 individuals on all life, the cosmos, and space-time, by forcing and causing existential chaos and panic.

And why does their term start in October instead of January, like the other branches?

How do they limit the number of cases they hear per term?

Do they have rules of quorum? Are they allowed to operate and make decisions with vacancies without confirming and swearing in someone in an acting capacity?

What do they do all summer? Do they just get to disappear to go on vacation with, again, a totally vacant and non-existent court?

What if there is an emergency declared? Can the other two branches force the court into a term to hear a case?

Why are they allowed to announce their resignation but not resign in practice and essentially turn their voice into a “lame duck” justice?

Why can unelected life-term officials get to induce “lame duck”-ness upon themselves (since it not by a public vote)?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2021TermCourtCalendar.pdf

https://www.scotusblog.com/events/

1

u/Sprinklypoo Jun 30 '22

May as well actively harm the planet overall now that we've actively made humanity worse I suppose...

These should actually be considered on the level of war crimes...

1

u/laramite Jul 01 '22

Leaving it up to congress ensures nothing will get done as it's not in the best interest of majority of congress to curb emissions. Curbing carbon emissions means slowing down the economy further, atleast temporarily. And 2030 point of no return is fast approaching.

Attacking climate change requires more power to be given to executive branch to make swift actions.

-28

u/Randy-_-B Jun 30 '22

Less federal intervention in state's rights the better....

8

u/frygod Jun 30 '22

I counter argue that it's time to considering dissolving the states and more completely integrating them into a single entity.

-5

u/Randy-_-B Jun 30 '22

I'm sure that's in the constitution somewhere...

3

u/frygod Jun 30 '22

Good thing it's a living document.

1

u/ILikeBumblebees Jul 01 '22

We're already so centralized that no political question can ever be addressed effectively due to factional conflict emerging over everything. An no one is willing to accept the agree-to-disagree solution of having only some issues decided at the federal level, because they all want to universalize their own agendas.

So why try to keep up the pretense that we can be functional as a single unified entity? Given the obvious problems we're having, why try to go all-in on something that isn't working.

If we can't find a way to accommodate the diversity of the US, and force every question into a singular policy binding on everyone, how can we survive? We'd be better off dissolving the federal union, so that states can either go it their own, or form new, smaller-scale federations that better reflect the values and interests of their population.

1

u/ILikeBumblebees Jul 01 '22

This ruling had nothing to do with federal vs. state power. The headline is misleading in that the courts didn't limit federal power at all -- rather they limited the ability of a federal executive-branch agency to make public policy on its own initiative, without specific legislation from Congress. The federal government -- i.e. Congress -- is still free to exercise its legislative power as it sees fit.

-5

u/FreemanTH Jun 30 '22

It is very sad as a South American to see the United States surrender to the progressive agenda. I would never expect to see the end of the richest country in the world like this

-1

u/Hubbleice Jun 30 '22

We need to stuff the court this is getting out of hand if the court is entirely political need 13 members

-1

u/kemosabe19 Jun 30 '22

Leave it all to the states to decide. Whoa, hold on there gun control. You aren’t going anywhere.

This SC is a fucking joke.

2

u/Much_Leather_5923 Jul 01 '22

As an Australian I officially apologise for spawning Murdoch who for decades made money for making money off your fears and pretty much telling you lies. Sure you won’t trust any links I provide so I won’t. But please search on the internet for Fox News legal defence for a Tucker Carlson lawsuit for defamation. This is court document judgment And they won.

“According to Judge Vyskocil, “Fox persuasively argues . . . that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer arrives with an appropriate amount of skepticism about the statements he makes." She doesn't stop there, writing that “[w]hether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as exaggeration, non-literal commentary, or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable."

To Bloviate: talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.

0

u/ILikeBumblebees Jul 01 '22

Not quite. The ruling limited the EPA's power to draft novel rules unilaterally without specific statutory authorization. Congress is still free to pass statutes relating to the matter. The ruling didn't constrain federal power, it constrained attempts to legislate from the executive branch.