Did the US Supreme Court just ban climate change?

[BeBMan]

Days ago on this planet:

Supreme Court limits Biden's power to cut emissions


The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lost some of its power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court represents a major setback to President Joe Biden's climate plans.

He called it a "devastating decision" but said it would not undermine his effort to tackle the climate crisis.

The case against the EPA was brought by West Virginia on behalf of 18 other mostly Republican-led states and some of the nation's largest coal companies.

They argued that the agency did not have the authority to limit emissions across whole states.

These 19 states were worried their power sectors would be forced to move away from using coal, at a severe economic cost.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court sided with the conservative states and fossil-fuel companies, agreeing that the EPA did not have the authority to impose such sweeping measures.

(snipsnap)

full: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62000742

Coal is certainly the future.

[PLATO]

The answer to the Thread title is "NO, SCOTUS did not ban climate change". What they did do is hold the EPA to its congressionally mandated authority. In fact, they explicitly said that Congress would have to add this authority for it to be a valid exercise of their power.

The ball is in the Democratically controlled House, Senate, and Administration's court to act.

Instead we see a further vilification of the court as for some reason those in power do not want to follow the Constitutional Democratic process to enact laws they so emphatically state that everyone wants.

Makes ya wonder.....

[N35t0r]

The answer to the Thread title is "NO, SCOTUS did not ban climate change". What they did do is hold the EPA to its congressionally mandated authority. In fact, they explicitly said that Congress would have to add this authority for it to be a valid exercise of their power.

The ball is in the Democratically controlled House, Senate, and Administration's court to act.

Instead we see a further vilification of the court as for some reason those in power do not want to follow the Constitutional Democratic process to enact laws they so emphatically state that everyone wants.

Makes ya wonder.....

Yeah, somehow disincentivising coal plants in favor of renewable energies is not 'reducing pollution' for some reason.

It's funny that the case had been pretty much dropped anyway, because nobody is building new coal plants anymore, since they're too expensive, yet the SC picked it up anyway.

[PLATO]

Yeah, somehow disincentivising coal plants in favor of renewable energies is not 'reducing pollution' for some reason.

It is not a case of disincentivising or not. It is a case of statutory authority. Congress can fix it pretty quick if they want to.

It's funny that the case had been pretty much dropped anyway, because nobody is building new coal plants anymore, since they're too expensive, yet the SC picked it up anyway.

You are thinly hiding the fact that laws or judgements that are poorly written or inconsistent with Constitutional law should be overlooked if they are "good" in your opinion. I wonder if rulings that limited things you think are "bad" would get the same attention in the same way.

The court is not the legislature. The court is to merely rule on what the law says. We, as a country, have become so used to judicial activism that we forget where the true power to change things is. Congress, with the support of the States, has the power to change literally anything about how this country is run. Interestingly enough, every Congressman has an office that is an easy drive from their constituents. If you want congress to grant the EPA the power to regulate individual plants, then call, write, or go see your Congressman.

I am happy to see a court that is overturning bad opinions and holding federal agencies to their legal powers. It is my greatest hope that these things will cause the people to reassert their power and cause the change that we all want in a more permanent way.

[Berzerker]

the abortion ruling was judicial activism, they were supposed to rule on a Mississippi law restricting abortion after 15 weeks and they dumped roe entirely

[PLATO]

the abortion ruling was judicial activism, they were supposed to rule on a Mississippi law restricting abortion after 15 weeks and they dumped roe entirely

Probably would help if you understood the Supreme Courts purpose.

[Berzerker]

apparently judicial activism is the purpose

[EPW]

Plato is very niave if he thinks roe and this ruling have anything to do with restoring power to the legislature.

[Geronimo]

Plato is very niave if he thinks roe and this ruling have anything to do with restoring power to the legislature.

I'd disagree except that this court is happy to undermine restoration of legislative power in areas like gun control.

[giblets]

If you want congress to grant the EPA the power to regulate individual plants,

Wait, the EPA can't regulate power plants?

[N35t0r]

The SCOTUS ruled (5-4) in 2007 that CO2 was indeed a pollutant, and could thus be targeted by the EPA.

It is anybody's guess what would happen if the same case were to be held today...

[PLATO]

Plato is very niave if he thinks roe and this ruling have anything to do with restoring power to the legislature.

Then call me naïve. Roe was poorly written and poorly reasoned. Both liberal and conservative legal scholars have said this for years.

[PLATO]

I'd disagree except that this court is happy to undermine restoration of legislative power in areas like gun control.

Legislative power should be restored in areas that the Constitution does not dictate. In some cases this means power back to the States...in some it means that the Federal Congress needs to take action. WRT gun control, this IS addressed in the Constitution and is therefore within the power of SCOTUS to limit the actions that either legislative body can take. (Barring of course, Congress' ability to offer amendments to the Constitution for the States to consider).

This court is getting us closer to the original ideal set up by the framers...That local government is best. My personal belief is that we have become to enamored with Federal Power and that has caused many citizens to neglect their responsibilities as citizens of a free country. Returning power to the elected representatives shouldn't be a bad thing should it?

[PLATO]

Return to Jim Crow? Seriously? Fear is based in a lack of knowledge my friend.

[Berzerker]

Its just a slippery slope example, abortion today, who knows what tomorrow. I dont trust Democrats or Republicans with my freedoms, I want the courts protecting individuals from the majority.

[PLATO]

I trust the people to ultimately vote for what they believe in. This should be manifested in their Representatives they choose. I trust the people more than I trust the courts who are, by and large, not elected by the people.

[EPW]

This court doesn't care about small government or individual liberty. It cares about pushing through a conservative-christian agenda. You may make believe as you will that the framers happened to have the exact same beliefs as the pre-Trump Republican platform, but some of us like to live our lives a little closer to reality.

[PLATO]

This court doesn't care about small government or individual liberty. It cares about pushing through a conservative-christian agenda. You may make believe as you will that the framers happened to have the exact same beliefs as the pre-Trump Republican platform, but some of us like to live our lives a little closer to reality.

And you know this for a fact how? Really what you are doing is expressing a leftist popular opinion as if it were fact. You really don't know these people do you? Have you had discussions with the justices that you would like to share?

The reality, as they say, is somewhat different. Nearly all of the justices on the court have been consistent with their judicial philosophy far before Trump came on the scene for one.

It is far closer to the truth to say that the "pre Trump republican platform" was based on originalist (i.e. founder father) thought than the "framers happened to have the exact same beliefs". The pre Trump platform was BASED on their thoughts...it is not happenstance.

So maybe those "some of us" you refer to might just want to move a little closer to reality than you already are.

All that being said...the Constitution IS an amendable document through the will of the people acting through their elected representatives. Want something different? Campaign for a cause...convince people your idea has merit...support candidates that believe as you do...and most importantly...VOTE.