What’s the Supreme Court doing to us? What (and for whom?) exactly are the benefits of the kinds of decisions being handed down. I’m getting kind of worried. Not for me, I’ll be gone in 20 years but I’m worried about my kids, my grandson, and all of you youngsters.
Although it won’t get as much attention as some of the other rulings in this term, the court’s decision could end up having the most significant long-term impact.
Excerpt:
Imagine that Congress passes a statute authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency to require permits whenever material alterations are made to a “major stationary source” of air pollution (or new ones are created). So far, so good. Now imagine that a power plant near your home has three smokestacks. Does that count as one “major stationary source” or three ? And what makes a stationary source “major”? Beyond these substantive questions is a procedural one: Who should resolve these matters? Unelected federal judges, who may have no particular expertise in environmental law, or the federal agency staffed with scientific and policy experts who do?
Laws usually either mandate, regulate or ban some act. Rarely to allow something. The fact that nothing in the US Construction mentions abortion means that it is not banned nor regulated nor mandated therefore left to each individual’s discretion.
In simpleton terms, any act not mentioned is not tantamount to prohibition. Being mentioned as such would be.
Bicycles, space exploration and AI aren’t mentioned in the Constitution either.
Unless you are a psycho originalist who doesn’t recognize the Constitution is a living document, then the SCOTUS’ sole purpose is to interpret how it applies in modern life. That’s why amendments exist, and they are very hard to pass.
Abortion surely would not survive a vote of the public to enshrine it illegal as an amendment, so not quite sure why that is the example.
I don’t know how it will all end. I’ve always viewed matters as a pendulum. They swing one way , then they go back the other way. But the SC is a very different animal. It
could take decades thru the normal processes
to right this courts decisions. On environmental matters, we simply do not have that type of time. We have countless examples of companies knowingly doing the wrong things such as with
tobacco and smoking , lead in gasoline, CO2 pollution, and numerous superfund sites created by commercial businesses. Or they just declare bankruptcy and walk away leaving a long term generational health risk and the public stuck with cost of cleaning up the mess.
Thinking the court can deal with complex scientific matters is just kinda crazy, especially when you look at how generally uninformed the public and judges are. And when you have justices helping themselves unabashedly to “gifts” and finding immunity in the constitution to solve a nonexistent
problem is weird.
The administrative estate had to be reigned in. Non elected government employees shouldn’t have the power over businesses and citizens like they do.
If you want an encompassing law, pass an encompassing law. Don’t pass crappy legislation and leave it up to government employees to interpret and implement. Do your job Congress.
Funny take since that’s the exact opposite of what Dobbs v. Jackson accomplished. State
governments taking away health care options for people and redefining what a baby is without
the foresight of dealing with rape, incest, life threatening scenarios, and IVF procedures. Brilliant!
Doubtful you can write a law that can encompass all aspects covered by rules and regulations
in a law. Sure you can always try to write better laws, no objection there; but, our problem today seems tobe best defined as gridlock in NOT passing laws. Adding all the verbage to cover all
aspects of needed rules and regulations in a law will make the bills MUCH bigger and even
less understood by congress members who are not technically astute. You really think bigger
bills will be easier to get passed ?
Tyranny of the “religious based” minority taking away peoples freedoms.
Around 6 in 10 Americans think their state should generally allow a person to obtain a legal abortion if they don’t want to be pregnant for any reason, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. That’s an increase from June 2021, a year before the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedure, when about half of Americans thought legal abortion should be possible under these circumstances.
Seven in 10 Americans think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a slight increase from last year, while about 3 in 10 think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
I really don’t understand this argument. For the most part, the administrative state makes rules and regulations that benefit the general population. The EPA, FDA, OSHA, etc. all help benefit the average American (again, for the most part). Corporate profits are at an all-time high despite the “administrative state.” The argument that “the administrative state needs to be reigned in” comes from billionaires who think they need more money (spoiler alert - they don’t). That message is then funneled through the politicians to whom they donate, as well as conservative media outlets.
If administrative agencies benefit individuals, and corporations are making as much of a profit as they ever have, why do we need to “reign in the administrative state”?
Sure you can find a rule or regulation that seems stupid to the uninformed. And a few probably
are. But let’s be honest, the average American is scientifically illiterate and not a SME on anything.
Find a rule or regulation that seems ridiculous on the surface and untruthful politicians hype it as
a big problem. And the stupid buy into it, and parrot it as most regulations are useless.
Yeah, that’s right. It’s so frustrating to see people adopt an argument that’s so clearly against their best interests. “Do away with the administrative state!” What, so we can set rivers on fire and get cancer from Cheerios again?
