• Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    198
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    For anyone curious, this bill is fighting against the conservative SCOTUS decision that basically said fossil fuel and other companies don’t have to listen to the EPA or follow environmental regulations if the company has a “reasonable”(undefined) argument against said regulation.

    So this law should get made. Get made good.

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Regulations are “unconstitutional”? Hmmmmmmm 🤔 Is SCOTUS bound by anything? Seems like they can rule however they like.

      • Wilzax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        SCOTUS is unchecked by the rest of the federal government. The only thing that would limit their power is a constitutional amendment, which requires 38 states to individually ratify it at the level of their state governments, not their federal congresspeople.

        There is literally no way for congress to affect the supreme court once it has 9 justices, or contradict its rulings on laws they call “unconstitutional”, short of impeaching supreme court justices or packing the court with more than 9 justices. Once enough of the court is full of fascists or enablers, it’s EXTREMELY hard to escape fascism without a constitutional convention.

        • Triasha@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          You could instruct the federal agencies to ignore court rulings, effectively undoing Marbury vrs Madison.

          That’s a constitutional crisis, but what is the court gonna do? Call the FBI? Send in the military?

          You can ask the Cherokee people what the court does with an uncooperative federal government, but you won’t find any in Georgia.

          Maybe that’s just fascism with our side in charge though.

          • Wilzax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Yeah unfortunately once fascism sets in there’s literally no way to get rid of it without using more fascism or violence. And considering that fascism necessarily requires the threat of violence, that previous statement can be simplified to “Fascism can only be defeated with violence”

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        Is SCOTUS bound by anything?

        flipping open my Lockean theory of self-governance

        Strictly speaking, the power of government is in its ability to achieve (relatively) peaceful compliance. The SCOTUS decision creates an opportunity for individuals to behave in defiance of the written law with a certain fearlessness. A President can go full Andrew Jackson and tell the judges to enforce that decision, but he’s still got to command a bureaucracy full of people who can be swayed in the other direction.

        What happens to a regulation that nobody is willing to enforce? What happens to a federal regulation that runs afoul of state law, in a district where municipal/state law enforcement will enthusiastically arrest and local DAs prosecute a federal agent?

        I would say that’s the real power of the SCOTUS. Opening the legal door for disobedience and negligence at the federal level, while state-level revolt occurs downstream.

      • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        In theory that was supposed to be the strength of SCOTUS, that being secure in their employment for life (or until retirement), they had no incentive to judge along party lines for fear of future prospects. However, we’ve seen that judges can still be both very partisan and entirely unqualified and we can now do nothing to remove them. Turns out bribery and threats still work on them

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The Loper Bright ruling was that when taken on appeal that the courts no longer have to accept a reasonable agency interpretation over a reasonable (or more reasonable) interpretation by the other party.

      And the rulings isn’t just for the EPA but all other federal agencies like the IRS, ICE, and the FDA. This bill is a double edged sword depending on who has the executive seat.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        This bill is a double edged sword depending on who has the executive seat.

        Not at all. It gives substantial power to the lower courts and strips it from the executive’s cabinet secretaries.

    • C126@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Basically agencies were given power unchecked without passing any laws giving them that power. Supreme court decision was correct. Congress needs to get off their butts and get laws passed if they want them so bad, and stop relying on shaky historical precedents.

      • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        I honestly agree with the decision in a vacuum, but in reality I can’t help but feel the decision was made very much with corporate interests in mind. Yeah congress should’ve gotten their ducks in a row long before now, but the real winner here is corporations, not constituents.

      • lagomorphlecture@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Kind of hard to pass bills when one political party is dedicated to nothing but corruption and obstruction but ok.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yes, it is hard to pass bills that only half of congress wants. Again, the system working as intended.

        • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s fine, that’s why state and local governments exist, to implement what can’t be decided on nationally.

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    The courts kind of already denying the authority of the legislature on this. These agencies were created and given authority by congress already.

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, they’ve gotten to the point of saying the legislature cannot delegate it’s authority. If it stands it functionally makes modern government impossible. If Congress cannot delegate to the executive, and it cannot take on executive style decision like the Westminster system, the government just cannot function.

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Let SCOTUS enforce it. Why anyone still listens to that nut job chorus is beyond me.

  • John Richard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    5 months ago

    At this point in time it isn’t enough. Republicans and the conservative justices will find whatever loopholes there are. They need to be advocating to change the role of the Supreme Court to an advisory agency only, where they have no decision-making powers.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The SCOTUS is necessary in a functioning system of checks and balances on power amongst the three branches of the federal government. The problem we have now is a court stacked with looney judges subverting the will of the people. We need a more effective means of maintaining balance in the court.

        • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Sure have. The SCOTUS takes up cases from the US Circuit Courts of Appeals. Appellate courts certainly serve their purpose, as district courts can and do get decisions wrong. But, the SCOTUS needs to be balanced enough to where one political viewpoint doesn’t dominate their decisions and subsequent precedents.

    • zigmus64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m not sure they need loopholes. They’re perfectly fine with tossing out precedent and rehashing settled law. Next step is to just make shit up.