Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
Related: About this forumAnalysis: The Supreme Court's EPA ruling was the beginning of something bigger
Analysis: The Supreme Courts EPA ruling was the beginning of something bigger
washingtonpost.com
Analysis | The Supreme Court's EPA ruling was the beginning of something bigger
Republican attorneys general and conservative legal activists are plotting ways to challenge other environmental regulations on similar grounds, setting up a larger legal showdown over the federal...
Analysis | The Supreme Court's EPA ruling was the beginning of something bigger
Republican attorneys general and conservative legal activists are plotting ways to challenge other environmental regulations on similar grounds, setting up a larger legal showdown over the federal...
Link to tweet
THE CLIMATE 202
The Supreme Court's EPA ruling was the beginning of something bigger
Analysis by Maxine Joselow
with research by Vanessa Montalbano
July 6, 2022 at 8:14 a.m. EDT
When the Supreme Court limited the Environmental Protection Agency's power to combat climate change last week, Republican attorneys general and conservative legal activists cheered the ruling.
In particular, they celebrated the court's embrace of the major questions doctrine, a conservative legal idea that says federal agencies need explicit authorization from Congress to decide issues of major economic and political significance.
{SNIP}
The anti-regulatory arsenal
The major questions doctrine is relatively new. But in the past year, the Supreme Court's conservative majority has invoked the idea to strike down a national moratorium on evictions imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the Biden administration's vaccination-or-testing requirement for the nations largest employers.
In the majority opinion in West Virginia v. EPA last week, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to make sweeping changes to the nation's power sector. ... The major questions doctrine didn't exist until fairly recently, but in the last year or so, the Supreme Court has made it a regular part of its anti-regulatory arsenal, Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, told The Climate 202. ... As a result, I am sure that enterprising attorneys general for red states will use it to challenge climate regulations, environmental regulations and all kinds of other regulations, Revesz said.
{snip}
By Maxine Joselow
Maxine Joselow is a staff writer who anchors The Climate 202 at The Washington Post. Sign up here. Twitter https://twitter.com/maxinejoselow
By Vanessa Montalbano
Vanessa Montalbano is a researcher for The Climate 202, a daily morning newsletter at The Washington Post that keeps readers up to date on climate news and policy. Twitter https://twitter.com/vanessamontzz
The Supreme Court's EPA ruling was the beginning of something bigger
Analysis by Maxine Joselow
with research by Vanessa Montalbano
July 6, 2022 at 8:14 a.m. EDT
When the Supreme Court limited the Environmental Protection Agency's power to combat climate change last week, Republican attorneys general and conservative legal activists cheered the ruling.
In particular, they celebrated the court's embrace of the major questions doctrine, a conservative legal idea that says federal agencies need explicit authorization from Congress to decide issues of major economic and political significance.
{SNIP}
The anti-regulatory arsenal
The major questions doctrine is relatively new. But in the past year, the Supreme Court's conservative majority has invoked the idea to strike down a national moratorium on evictions imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the Biden administration's vaccination-or-testing requirement for the nations largest employers.
In the majority opinion in West Virginia v. EPA last week, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to make sweeping changes to the nation's power sector. ... The major questions doctrine didn't exist until fairly recently, but in the last year or so, the Supreme Court has made it a regular part of its anti-regulatory arsenal, Richard Revesz, director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law, told The Climate 202. ... As a result, I am sure that enterprising attorneys general for red states will use it to challenge climate regulations, environmental regulations and all kinds of other regulations, Revesz said.
{snip}
By Maxine Joselow
Maxine Joselow is a staff writer who anchors The Climate 202 at The Washington Post. Sign up here. Twitter https://twitter.com/maxinejoselow
By Vanessa Montalbano
Vanessa Montalbano is a researcher for The Climate 202, a daily morning newsletter at The Washington Post that keeps readers up to date on climate news and policy. Twitter https://twitter.com/vanessamontzz
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 973 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Analysis: The Supreme Court's EPA ruling was the beginning of something bigger (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Jul 2022
OP
The Supreme Court is going to remove all protections for the common folk and
Midnight Writer
Jul 2022
#1
You mean like on the one hand they can shoot you, but on the other hand they can poison you?
bucolic_frolic
Jul 2022
#2
Midnight Writer
(22,974 posts)1. The Supreme Court is going to remove all protections for the common folk and
bolster "rights" for the monied class.
Imagine. No Food and Drug Administration. No Securities and Exchange Administration. No Federal Elections Commission. No Environmental Protection Agency. No Occupational Health and Safety Administration. No Federal Communications Commission.
All of these and more will be forbidden to make, issue or enforce Federal regulations.
A wet dream for the oligarchy of America.
bucolic_frolic
(47,002 posts)2. You mean like on the one hand they can shoot you, but on the other hand they can poison you?
Auggie
(31,802 posts)3. The plan started with placing John Roberts
They play the long game well, dont they? Wait long enough, and with help and luck, it falls into place.