The rightwing US supreme court has climate protection in its sights

[j brown's body]

"Granting a petition by several states and coal companies, the supreme court on 28 February will address what appears to be a technical legal question: does the Environmental Protection Agency have authority to calculate CO2 emissions targets for power plants based on mitigation techniques involving steps “beyond the fence-line” of individual plants? In truth, the matter the court is considering implicates –and imperils – the federal government’s power to fashion flexible solutions not only to global warming but to all manner of complex problems. The stakes are higher still: by ruling on the case at all, the court usurps power constitutionally entrusted to government’s politically accountable branches. Article 3 of the constitution limits federal courts to deciding concrete “cases and controversies” about the rights of individual parties. Yet this “case” involves neither a concrete dispute nor the specific rights of any of the challengers. Instead, it’s akin to an exam question about the options theoretically available to a federal agency to address a grave problem. In answering that hypothetical question, the court will have arrogated to itself an unprecedented, open-ended power to reshape the nation’s social and economic landscape – far in excess of its legitimate authority, as the foundational case Marbury v. Madison put it, to “declare what the law is”.

...The role the court is poised to play in West Virginia v. EPA is more breathtaking still. It stands ready not just to “publicly opine” on a broad legal question but to bind the entire federal government to its answer, restricting the range of policies the EPA –under President Joe Biden and future presidents – can even consider to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and tackle climate change.

Issuing any such “super advisory opinion” would seize the power to set regulatory policy itself – a perversion of separation of powers unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet, as its recent onrush of breaks with precedent, procedure and prudence to achieve the ultra-conservative majority’s policy preferences on abortion, public health and voting rights demonstrate, today’s court flouts all institutional bounds. As it charges ahead, what remains of the court’s legitimacy, the constitution’s allocation of decision-making authority, and the planet’s future all hang in the balance."

Link

"A perversion of separation of powers...Breaks with precedent, procedure and prudence."

 

[mrjurrs]

"Granting a petition by several states and coal companies, the supreme court on 28 February will address what appears to be a technical legal question: does the Environmental Protection Agency have authority to calculate CO2 emissions targets for power plants based on mitigation techniques involving steps “beyond the fence-line” of individual plants? In truth, the matter the court is considering implicates –and imperils – the federal government’s power to fashion flexible solutions not only to global warming but to all manner of complex problems. The stakes are higher still: by ruling on the case at all, the court usurps power constitutionally entrusted to government’s politically accountable branches. Article 3 of the constitution limits federal courts to deciding concrete “cases and controversies” about the rights of individual parties. Yet this “case” involves neither a concrete dispute nor the specific rights of any of the challengers. Instead, it’s akin to an exam question about the options theoretically available to a federal agency to address a grave problem. In answering that hypothetical question, the court will have arrogated to itself an unprecedented, open-ended power to reshape the nation’s social and economic landscape – far in excess of its legitimate authority, as the foundational case Marbury v. Madison put it, to “declare what the law is”.

...The role the court is poised to play in West Virginia v. EPA is more breathtaking still. It stands ready not just to “publicly opine” on a broad legal question but to bind the entire federal government to its answer, restricting the range of policies the EPA –under President Joe Biden and future presidents – can even consider to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and tackle climate change.

Issuing any such “super advisory opinion” would seize the power to set regulatory policy itself – a perversion of separation of powers unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet, as its recent onrush of breaks with precedent, procedure and prudence to achieve the ultra-conservative majority’s policy preferences on abortion, public health and voting rights demonstrate, today’s court flouts all institutional bounds. As it charges ahead, what remains of the court’s legitimacy, the constitution’s allocation of decision-making authority, and the planet’s future all hang in the balance."

Link

"A perversion of separation of powers...Breaks with precedent, procedure and prudence."

This court has shown no respect for stare decisis, and provides little evidence that they are not the judicial wing of the Republican Party.

 

[Jkca1]

Oh God, not another conspiracy theory.....Has anyone watched the decisions coming down from SCOTUS over the last year? If so, you'd know there is no right wing bias. If there was SCOTUS would have taken Trump's case regarding Jan. 6 documents. It didn't happen;

"The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it will not take up former President Donald Trump's case challenging the disclosure of his White House documents to the House January 6 investigation, a formal conclusion to his unsuccessful bid to keep those records secret." https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-white-house-docs-denial/index.html

 

[Exquisitor]

"Granting a petition by several states and coal companies, the supreme court on 28 February will address what appears to be a technical legal question: does the Environmental Protection Agency have authority to calculate CO2 emissions targets for power plants based on mitigation techniques involving steps “beyond the fence-line” of individual plants? In truth, the matter the court is considering implicates –and imperils – the federal government’s power to fashion flexible solutions not only to global warming but to all manner of complex problems. The stakes are higher still: by ruling on the case at all, the court usurps power constitutionally entrusted to government’s politically accountable branches. Article 3 of the constitution limits federal courts to deciding concrete “cases and controversies” about the rights of individual parties. Yet this “case” involves neither a concrete dispute nor the specific rights of any of the challengers. Instead, it’s akin to an exam question about the options theoretically available to a federal agency to address a grave problem. In answering that hypothetical question, the court will have arrogated to itself an unprecedented, open-ended power to reshape the nation’s social and economic landscape – far in excess of its legitimate authority, as the foundational case Marbury v. Madison put it, to “declare what the law is”.

...The role the court is poised to play in West Virginia v. EPA is more breathtaking still. It stands ready not just to “publicly opine” on a broad legal question but to bind the entire federal government to its answer, restricting the range of policies the EPA –under President Joe Biden and future presidents – can even consider to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and tackle climate change.

Issuing any such “super advisory opinion” would seize the power to set regulatory policy itself – a perversion of separation of powers unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet, as its recent onrush of breaks with precedent, procedure and prudence to achieve the ultra-conservative majority’s policy preferences on abortion, public health and voting rights demonstrate, today’s court flouts all institutional bounds. As it charges ahead, what remains of the court’s legitimacy, the constitution’s allocation of decision-making authority, and the planet’s future all hang in the balance."

Link

"A perversion of separation of powers...Breaks with precedent, procedure and prudence."

I can't even read that, can you tell me what it says?

 

[Razoo]

"Granting a petition by several states and coal companies, the supreme court on 28 February will address what appears to be a technical legal question: does the Environmental Protection Agency have authority to calculate CO2 emissions targets for power plants based on mitigation techniques involving steps “beyond the fence-line” of individual plants? In truth, the matter the court is considering implicates –and imperils – the federal government’s power to fashion flexible solutions not only to global warming but to all manner of complex problems. The stakes are higher still: by ruling on the case at all, the court usurps power constitutionally entrusted to government’s politically accountable branches. Article 3 of the constitution limits federal courts to deciding concrete “cases and controversies” about the rights of individual parties. Yet this “case” involves neither a concrete dispute nor the specific rights of any of the challengers. Instead, it’s akin to an exam question about the options theoretically available to a federal agency to address a grave problem. In answering that hypothetical question, the court will have arrogated to itself an unprecedented, open-ended power to reshape the nation’s social and economic landscape – far in excess of its legitimate authority, as the foundational case Marbury v. Madison put it, to “declare what the law is”.

...The role the court is poised to play in West Virginia v. EPA is more breathtaking still. It stands ready not just to “publicly opine” on a broad legal question but to bind the entire federal government to its answer, restricting the range of policies the EPA –under President Joe Biden and future presidents – can even consider to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and tackle climate change.

Issuing any such “super advisory opinion” would seize the power to set regulatory policy itself – a perversion of separation of powers unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet, as its recent onrush of breaks with precedent, procedure and prudence to achieve the ultra-conservative majority’s policy preferences on abortion, public health and voting rights demonstrate, today’s court flouts all institutional bounds. As it charges ahead, what remains of the court’s legitimacy, the constitution’s allocation of decision-making authority, and the planet’s future all hang in the balance."

Link

"A perversion of separation of powers...Breaks with precedent, procedure and prudence."

ALEC has convinced them clean energy is bad for our health. They are very good at twisting the facts in their favor. Yes it is Koch Oil and Koch Uranium Processing leading this misinformation bundle of information.

This oil and nuke operation is looking to do away with clean air and water.

 

[j brown's body]

Oh God, not another conspiracy theory.....Has anyone watched the decisions coming down from SCOTUS over the last year? If so, you'd know there is no right wing bias. If there was SCOTUS would have taken Trump's case regarding Jan. 6 documents. It didn't happen;

"The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it will not take up former President Donald Trump's case challenging the disclosure of his White House documents to the House January 6 investigation, a formal conclusion to his unsuccessful bid to keep those records secret." https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/politics/supreme-court-trump-white-house-docs-denial/index.html

Like reconsidering Roe even though no new evidence has been presented, just a change in judges?

 

[Jkca1]

Like reconsidering Roe even though no new evidence has been presented, just a change in judges?

The law is fluid. Do you think that Plessy vs. Ferguson should have been reviewed and overturned? No new evidence there, just a change in Judges....

 

[Cardinal]

And we come to it: the two main reasons Republicans fought tooth and nail to implement a conservative SC: dissolve voter rights and dismantle environmental protections.

 

[Craig234]

Oh God, not another conspiracy theory.....Has anyone watched the decisions coming down from SCOTUS over the last year? If so, you'd know there is no right wing bias. If there was SCOTUS would have taken Trump's case regarding Jan. 6 documents. It didn't happen;

That's insane. And fallacious. "There is no right-wing bias because I point to a single case that wasn't decided for the right-wing side."

 

[Craig234]

Attacking the very power of the American people to reign in the powerful corporations through the power of government regulation is a top agenda of the radical right-wing, through the Supreme Court they have have installed.

 

[Jkca1]

That's insane. And fallacious. "There is no right-wing bias because I point to a single case that wasn't decided for the right-wing side."

You think it's insane, I think it's fair to take a look at the decisions. All all unbiased? Of course not. Do all Judges own the labels given to them by the opposing party?

I think that Chief Justice Roberts is a great example. Appointed by Bush, he is a much more cerebral and fair thinker than the left gives him credit for. But that is just my opinion.Let's look at recent history. 6 months ago SCOTUS shot down the Louisiana abortion law remember?

"Chief Justice Roberts announced, “The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

Would a right winger shoot down an anti-abortion law? I say unequivocally no.

What did the right wing say about the court's decision? " Right-wing commentator Mark Levin took to Twitter and posted: “Roberts has destroyed any credibility the Court may have had."

Additionally it was said by the right “This is the latest in a series of judicial power grabs from the Chief Justice and the liberal wing of the court, (bold mine) who have consistently ruled on the basis of progressive politics instead of respecting the law, the will of voters, or the basic dignity of life.” Sounds more like a lefty than right to me...

Here is a list of Robert's other decisions since 2005;

List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you go through them all you will see that rather than being a right wing symp, he is one of the more fairer Justices on the court.

Maybe we both can admit that there is bias on the court. I state there is. Do you think Biden's choice is not biased? Maybe a radical left winger?

RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called Jackson a “radical” Supreme Court nominee.

"Maybe the only promise Joe Biden has kept is his pledge to nominate a liberal, activist judge to the Supreme Court. Ketanji Brown Jackson is exactly that: a radical, left-wing activist who would rubberstamp Biden's disastrous agenda,” she said in a statement.

“Her record from the beginning of her career shows hostility to religious liberty, free speech, and other constitutional rights. The American people do not want a liberal extremist on the Supreme Court."

 

[Craig234]

You think it's insane, I think it's fair to take a look at the decisions. All all unbiased? Of course not. Do all Judges own the labels given to them by the opposing party?

I think that Chief Justice Roberts is a great example. Appointed by Bush, he is a much more cerebral and fair thinker than the left gives him credit for. But that is just my opinion.Let's look at recent history. 6 months ago SCOTUS shot down the Louisiana abortion law remember?

"Chief Justice Roberts announced, “The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

Would a right winger shoot down an anti-abortion law? I say unequivocally no.

What did the right wing say about the court's decision? " Right-wing commentator Mark Levin took to Twitter and posted: “Roberts has destroyed any credibility the Court may have had."

Additionally it was said by the right “This is the latest in a series of judicial power grabs from the Chief Justice and the liberal wing of the court, (bold mine) who have consistently ruled on the basis of progressive politics instead of respecting the law, the will of voters, or the basic dignity of life.” Sounds more like a lefty than right to me...

Here is a list of Robert's other decisions since 2005;

List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you go through them all you will see that rather than being a right wing symp, he is one of the more fairer Justices on the court.

Maybe we both can admit that there is bias on the court. I state there is. Do you think Biden's choice is not biased? Maybe a radical left winger?

RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel called Jackson a “radical” Supreme Court nominee.

"Maybe the only promise Joe Biden has kept is his pledge to nominate a liberal, activist judge to the Supreme Court. Ketanji Brown Jackson is exactly that: a radical, left-wing activist who would rubberstamp Biden's disastrous agenda,” she said in a statement.

“Her record from the beginning of her career shows hostility to religious liberty, free speech, and other constitutional rights. The American people do not want a liberal extremist on the Supreme Court."

I'm going to simplify the complexity of the issue causing you problems. "The right" isn't just one thing. It's especially a combination of monied interests, and 'populist' interests they ally with in order to get votes and power. the first cares about destroying the government's regulatory power; the latter cares about overturning abortion.

The right-wing takeover of the court is driven by the monied interests. They groom lawyers and justices for powerful positions including judges based on an ideology of plutocracy. Roberts is firmly in that ideology. However, they also have to deal with the populist side of things; not every plutocrat judges is as sympathetic to other causes; and then, they have various limits to respect the law, also.

And so, on the one hand you will see them go to great lengths to come up with 'novel' legal arguments to advance their cause; yet, you can also sometimes see them blocked when they can't find a way to proceed without clearly violating the law. That doesn't mean they aren't radical warriors for corruption; but it means it's more complicated than that. Except perhaps for the worst of the worst like Thomas.

So, yes, at times, Roberts - who cares about the institution and his legacy as well as his plutocrat ideology - sometimes rules differently than parts of the right would like, infuriating them. That doesn't change the issue of the court being radical right.

 

[Athanasius68]

"Granting a petition by several states and coal companies, the supreme court on 28 February will address what appears to be a technical legal question: does the Environmental Protection Agency have authority to calculate CO2 emissions targets for power plants based on mitigation techniques involving steps “beyond the fence-line” of individual plants? In truth, the matter the court is considering implicates –and imperils – the federal government’s power to fashion flexible solutions not only to global warming but to all manner of complex problems. The stakes are higher still: by ruling on the case at all, the court usurps power constitutionally entrusted to government’s politically accountable branches. Article 3 of the constitution limits federal courts to deciding concrete “cases and controversies” about the rights of individual parties. Yet this “case” involves neither a concrete dispute nor the specific rights of any of the challengers. Instead, it’s akin to an exam question about the options theoretically available to a federal agency to address a grave problem. In answering that hypothetical question, the court will have arrogated to itself an unprecedented, open-ended power to reshape the nation’s social and economic landscape – far in excess of its legitimate authority, as the foundational case Marbury v. Madison put it, to “declare what the law is”.

...The role the court is poised to play in West Virginia v. EPA is more breathtaking still. It stands ready not just to “publicly opine” on a broad legal question but to bind the entire federal government to its answer, restricting the range of policies the EPA –under President Joe Biden and future presidents – can even consider to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and tackle climate change.

Issuing any such “super advisory opinion” would seize the power to set regulatory policy itself – a perversion of separation of powers unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet, as its recent onrush of breaks with precedent, procedure and prudence to achieve the ultra-conservative majority’s policy preferences on abortion, public health and voting rights demonstrate, today’s court flouts all institutional bounds. As it charges ahead, what remains of the court’s legitimacy, the constitution’s allocation of decision-making authority, and the planet’s future all hang in the balance."

Link

"A perversion of separation of powers...Breaks with precedent, procedure and prudence."

SCOTUS is reviewing whether Congress granted the EPA the power to do what the EPA has been doing.

A simple solution for those with great angst on the issue:
Congress can just, you know, change the law to give the EPA the authority.
Its called 'democracy.' Progressives often like to think they support it.