The Conservative Supreme Court may help doom the world

Yeah, not really that much hyperbole.

They are taking up a case today brought by red states and coal companies. The question - is it Constitutional for the Environmental Protection Agency to be able to regulate carbon emissions. At all.

With a 6-3 supermajority something as simple as that could go very, very wrong.

Likely not to get a ruling until next Summer. But thanks to all those conservatives out there who voted for batshit insane people so we have gotten to this point.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/what-the-supreme-courts-move-means-for-epa-climate-rules/

I assume this ruling would be extendable to other agencies, right? If EPA can't regulate CO2, then (for a wild example), FCC, STB wouldn't be able to, either?

Is this because EPA regs aren't laws? If a law was passed, would it work?

I doubt the world is at risk if the Court rules that major policy decisions have to be made by our elected officials and not by regulatory bodies.

Depends on the scope of the ruling. In a sane world, it shouldn't be a problem. But we left that territory 6 years ago.

The biggest problem of course is that even if they don't rule that the laws en toto are unconstitutional, but instead need to only a regular law (instead of an amendment) based on section 111d of the Clean Air Act, then good luck getting anything through congress when the Senate mostly represents empty land instead of people, and those few people that live there make their livings through mostly cattle and resource extraction.

Even right now, it's almost certain Manchkin would vote against broader law for emissions. And that's all it would take.

It's possible they do the right thing. But like you said, trust is in short supply.

God you’re dumb.

Shouldn't major policy decisions be made by our elected leaders? Or do you prefer an alternative to democracy?

You may find idiots like MTG, Botard, Ghomert, Cruz, Trump, and anyone with asn R next to their name to be great, but I would not let them try to protect a junked ford pinto.

No, no, I see an explosive opportunity here.

Paladin supports the Department of Weights and Measures being abolished and leaving the definition of a kilogram up to Congress.

Errr... yeah?

US Constitution
Article I
SECTION 8.
The Congress shall have Power ...
... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures

Elected officials didn't create the EPA and direct them to create those regulations? Elected officials don't have the authority to delegate technical decisions to the experts?

Which they promptly decided to cede to whatever Europe chose.

Ah, for that Congress again.

The environment connects to everything. The EPA doesn't--and shouldn't--have carte blanche to regulate everything.

And regulation of CO2 has huge implications for our economy. These implications need to be considered by our lawmakers.

You can't bypass the democratic process just because you're scared it will give you an outcome you don't prefer.

That's a good point if you're a fucking idiot.

Paladin has the best points. I think Trump gave him the idea that remaining a mentally truncated narcissist means a happier existence.

Touche.

I dunno, your mouth is saying "democracy, blah, blah, economy, blah, blah" but my ears are hearing...

"SATAN!! Put lightning in my balls!!! Right here!! Right here in the balls!!
*BOOOM!!!*
Yeesss!!!!!!".

Strange, innit?

The EPA has to justify their existence.

No ball lightning for you.

You could hear that?

Villagers in India heard it.

Don't worry, we're continuing to destroy the environment even with EPA in place.

You want these decisions to be more democratic, but you're comfortable with five unelected justices overturning decades of policy?

Three of whom were nominated by a president who received a minority of the popular vote and confirmed by senators who were elected by a minority of the population ...

The Court has a long history of making laws (and lets not kid ourselves about that issue) when the Legislature is either unable or unwilling to act. The elephant in the room is Roe v. Wade. Democrats are wetting their panties that this Court will modify or overturn it. Well, the Legislature has has 50 years to act, and hasn't because they're afraid of what it would mean to their constituents. Codify it into law and then you don't have to worry about what the Court does.

But, the Legislature hasn't and they won't. So, I don't want to hear whining when the Judiciary is forced to act as the Legislature because the Legislature is scared.

This is the reality of the situation. There should be a line when a life begins and has protections from the state. That should be legislated not left to interpretation of judges. It is like the age of consent, or something like the drinking age. There is a point where the fetus becomes a baby and it's own life. The law needs a defined line that can only be made through legislation.

If you really want to get it done the court needs to open up all abortion until such point as legislation gets made as to when the date is. That is the only way the actual discussion gets forced and we have a real conversation about it. If you want to limit it then you need to legislate it on a federal level.

I didn't realise that you were so big on democracy. When decisions are being made by elected leaders of which you disapprove, don't you often suggest that they should be put into private hands instead, or blocked based on an interpretation of your constitution?

First baby tooth starts to go loose.

I don't make the argument because I'm big on democracy. I make it because you all claim to be.

Almost always better to handle things consensually rather than coercively. And rights are not subject to mere popularity contests.