SCOTUS has one more card up its sleeve this week.

[RandySF]

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=MqPnJi5ZIuWY6a2_otoOMg

Will Stancil
@whstancil
One of the craziest things is that it's not over yet. Within a week the Supreme Court is going to declare that the EPA can't regulate carbon emissions, shredding federal efforts to respond to climate change.
12:28 PM · Jun 26, 2022·Twitter Web App

[2naSalit]

2. +1

[A HERETIC I AM]

14. This was solely the work of Mitch McConnell

He has been engineering this SCOTUS for years.

[Cosmocat]

38. See, wife, Elaine Chao

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/31/mcconnell-staffers-lobbied-russian-backed-kentucky-project-1442550

[Hekate]

15. Mitch McConnell, okay?

[jaysunb]

4. IEDs embedded everywhere. N

[Hekate]

16. That is an excellent analogy

[Hugin]

5. I was just thinking about how it appears they went ahead with TFG's second term without him.

It is much easier that way.

[JohnSJ]

6. That is because of what happened in 2016 when the SC was at stake. That election planted the

seeds which brought us to where we are today

The damage done from that election will will resonate for decades

[misanthrope]

21. More than decades

I think what's coming is simply a hastening of what looks imminent at this point. The environmental pressures caused by climate change -- drought, starvation, loss of arable land, fire, deadly heat, more powerful storms, declining air quality -- are going to make the contemporary world more susceptible to authoritarianism. For me, the question has been the time scale.

The loss of federal environmental regulation will return us to the early 20th century, when we poisoned and wrecked the environment and its residents as fast as we could turn our gaze toward it. Humanity is the saddest species of all because it falls so much shorter than its utmost potential.

[Sgent]

24. That was bad

could have also been stopped in 2000 by electing Gore.

[Demovictory9]

10. Biden inherited this SCOTUS

[delisen]

7. SCOTUS has put power in the street and we the people are going to pick It up

They think they have seized power for themselves and Thorne who put them there but they have destabilized the entire country and I believe the people will be deciding what the Constitution is an means.

The most important tool we have is non violence especially since they want to provoke us.

[MomInTheCrowd]

8. Y E S

[Demovictory9]

9. fuck the ugly stupid one, the handmaiden and the other three dopes

[ShazzieB]

27. Which ugly stupid one?

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

But I do think there is more than one ugly, stupid one. There is enough stupid to go around, and ugly, at least, is a subjective thing, so we probably wouldn't all pick the same one. So I really am not sure which one you have in mind.

I am, however, in full agreement with the sentiments you expressed.

[Demovictory9]

28. this one

[Raine]

11. This really worries me seeing as to what other decisions

they already made

[dalton99a]

12. Make more babies so we can cook them to death because heaven needs fresh souls

[Grumpy Old Guy]

17. Blame also goes to the Koch brothers...

... and the Federalist Society. This was their reason for existance.

[betsuni]

20. Mercers and movement conservatives.

They all want to transform the country according to their ideology.

[Grumpy Old Guy]

29. It's not just about ideology.

It's also about greed. No matter how much money they make, it's never enough.

[betsuni]

31. It's part of the ideology and they give away billions.

They didn't get a return all the time on those billions spent over the decades. In my opinion, it has a lot to do with ideology.

Republicans didn't suddenly change after Citizens United because of money, and they won't change if tomorrow money was taken out of politics. I get cranky when people say every dysfunction in politics is about money, especially when Democrats are attacked for supposedly being corrupt and bribed. It triggers me so I'm touchy.

[JHB]

36. When the ideology is "Restraints for Thee but not for Me", is there a difference?

To them, "government tyranny" means anything that constrains their own ability to act like tyrants whenever they want.

[calimary]

25. And what do WE have, on OUR side, in the think-tank/foundation/institute department,

to COUNTERACT this shit? WHERE'S OURS????? Still asleep, maybe???

The bad guys have a huge roster of organizations, constructs, and havens that cook this shit up and disperse it to legislators to act upon - the result of which is to turn our country on its ass and Democrats/liberals/progressives down into Hell.

WHAT HAVE WE GOT, to start pushing back, and overturn and outsmart and undo and blunt and cancel out this shit????? WHERE'S OURS?????????????

[Grumpy Old Guy]

30. We don't have any billionaires on our side...

... that compare to the Kochs.

Maybe Bloomberg, but that's about it.

[Cosmocat]

39. Correct

There are so many avenues that they have going to deconstruct America you can't keep track of them.

Meanwhile, Dems (elected officials, party leaders) continue to operate as if American liberal democracy is not on its last legs.

[ZonkerHarris]

18. Supreme Court: the government can't be government

[Model35mech]

32. Exactly, it's a States-rights-er dream come true.

DESTROY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and you're liberated from EVERY federal law and regulation and all those dreaded federal taxes.

[Rhiannon12866]

19. Twitter replies:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[BlueMTexpat]

22. Until the Lying Liars

confirmed under Trump and the corrupt Clarence Thomas are removed from this institution, I will refer to it always and only as the Supreme Con.

It is completely illegitimate insofar as the Rule of Law is concerned.

It is not a Court by any means whatsoever, unless in the "Kangaroo" sense.

[AllyCat]

23. I hate them. I really hate them.

[Old Crank]

26. This case is about carbon emissions, however

The real target is every agency writing regulations. They are ready to say that congress cannot hand off its authority to the executive branch.
This would mean that ALL regulations by the EPA, FDA etc would have to be written by congress.

[Model35mech]

33. The regulatory agencies were added to government to introduce subject area expertise

Most Congress critters had no expertise to understand the issues involved in regulation.

Do this mind-experiment to understand the problem... with no regulatory agencies Palin, Bachman, Greene and Sinema-esque congress critters would be in charge of national safety standards for guns, drugs, food, air-travel, pipelines and the shipment of toxic chemicals. Ask yourself, 'what could go wrong?'

The challenge of usurping Congressional authority is a long-standing issue, and was checked in the process of creating the regulatory agencies. Provision was made for challenges to wording of regulations and enforcement so the creation and application of regulations didn't become simply a matter of un-elected bureaucratic college grads/experts exercising executive authority where the other branches of government have Constitutionally defined interests. Congress can and does review, limit and rewrite regulations, the option for an entity or person charged with a regulatory violation to go to court exists and -is- protected. In this way regulatory acivity and it's judgments aren't only made by unelected bureaucrats.

The problem is, of course, knowing complicated erudite things about the way the world works, and caring about impacts of human activity on society and the world causes regulations to mitigate against the greedy, devious as well as the thoughtless impulsive acts often discovered in in the wake of acts of innovation, industrialization, and financialization that can harm society.

Without experts in regulatory agencies it would be a frontier economy, externalizing all the hazards of human activity and resulting costs onto the public in the interest of realizing PROFITS for the devious and thoughtless titans in the economy.

[Old Crank]

34. Correct

Regulations will be written by the deepest pockets for the benefit of the few. There will be no recourse for damages caused if you are in another state.

[Model35mech]

41. "Correct" hardly captures and your explanation of what that means hardly

captures what I said.

Indeed, it's pretty much a complete overwrite of my intent.

I never said only the monied get to write regulations, because that is simply NOT true.

However it is true that clever, devious, greedy people with finances can buy and manipulate politicians and lawyers who think the practice of law is only about providing alternate arguments without regard to consequences of what that practice.

[PA Democrat]

35. Excellent point.

Good discussion of this strategy here:

In their briefing at the Supreme Court, the parties challenging the Clean Power Plan relied heavily on an interpretive presumption sometimes called the “major questions” rule. According to the challengers, laws passed by Congress must speak “with unmissable clarity” before authorizing an agency to address matters with major political or economic significance. Applying that rule, the challengers argued that the Clean Power Plan is legitimate only if the Clean Air Act specifically authorizes the precise methods of reducing carbon dioxide emissions that the rule prescribes. The challengers further claimed that the Supreme Court must apply this “major questions” rule as a way of enforcing a constitutional prohibition on laws that delegate legislative authority to agencies—the so-called “nondelegation doctrine.”

CAC filed an amicus brief supporting the EPA on behalf of Julian Davis Mortenson, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and a leading scholar on constitutional history relating to legislative delegations of authority. Our brief explains that under the original understanding of the Constitution, there is no prohibition on legislative delegations to enforce, either directly or through a “major questions” rule.

As the brief explains, at the time of the Founding, legislative authority was understood to be inherently delegable. The British Parliament and other legislatures across the Anglo-American world had a long tradition of delegating broad discretionary rulemaking authority to agents, who were not regarded as impermissibly “making law” when they exercised that authority. Consistent with theory and precedent, legislative delegations were a pervasive feature of state governance in America, both before and after Independence.

As we further explain, the ratification of the Constitution did not introduce new restrictions on delegation. Although the Constitution divides power among three branches and assigns all “legislative powers” to Congress, nothing about that division requires limits on Congress’s power to delegate rulemaking authority to executive agencies, so long as Congress retains ultimate control over the legislative process. Furthermore, the debates surrounding the Constitution’s drafting and ratification betray no concern about this type of legislative delegation.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/west-virginia-v-epa/

[Novara]

37. You know, at this point they're just being assholes because they can.

[lark]

40. Don't understand why Biden won't support expanding the court.

We are doomed unless he does.