[falcolas]

Why, then, has no previous SC viewed its role in this way?

Courts have historically always considered the intent of law (constitution) in addition to the word of law (constitution). Why isn't this one?

It feels like this SC intends to use pedantry to hobble the federal government. But... why? Because they can?

[lolinder]

Have you read the decision? I haven't read the whole thing, but it consistently talks about what Congress intended to do. Here's a relevant extract, in which the EPA itself acknowledges that to the extent Congress expressed intent, it went against the EPA's rulemaking:

> EPA argued that under the major questions of doctrine, a clear statement was necessary to conclude that Congress intended to delegate authority "of this breadth to regulate a fundamental sector of the economy." It found none. "Indeed," it concluded, given the text and structure of the statute, "Congress has directly spoken to this precise question and precluded" the use of measures such as generation shifting.

The problem here is that what most people here wish Congress intended to do isn't what Congress actually intended to do, because they couldn't build the political will to do it. I'm sympathetic to that view, but it's not the Supreme Court's job to fix Congress's deadlock.

[enragedcacti]

Have you read the dissent? it has clear legal answers to the questions being asked, including how the supreme court is ruling against non-existent policy as a political statement. The EPA guidance quoted exists because the EPA decided to move in a different direction before ever applying the Clean Power Plan.

How does issuing preemptive and overly broad rulings against regulatory action that doesn't exist align with SCOTUS "just doing their job" as many people are asserting?

[bmelton]

It largely had been up until 1984, when Chevron v NRDC was decided in a way that yielded a _deference_ that previously didn't exist in determining the scope of executive branch delegation authority via statutory interpretation - e.g., "Can the agency I've tasked with regulating John also regulate the Boy Scouts of America, of which John is a member?" and "If a regulatory agency can regulate John, can it determine for itself that it may also regulate John's best friend Janet just by reinterpreting the statute for itself without input by the executive or congressional branches?"

[falcolas]

The intent of the EPA is to regulate things that negatively impact the environment. To use your analogies, the EPA can by the word of law regulate John, and by the intent of law should be able to regulate BSA and Janet if they are operating in ways that negatively impact the environment.

If you limit an entity to only ever operate by the word and not the intent of law, then it's trivial for malicious (more accurately greedy) actors to skirt regulation, because the government will never be able to keep up with the exploitation of loopholes.

Kind of like how the IRS can tax bitcoins, despite cryptocurrencies not being explicitly written into the constitution or tax laws.

[briandear]

> Kind of like how the IRS can tax bitcoins, despite cryptocurrencies not being explicitly written into the constitution or tax laws.

Nope. The IRS could always tax assets. And bitcoin is another form of asset.

[falcolas]

And what legally labeled a bitcoin as an asset? There's enough wiggle room that someone, somewhere had to make a call, and I doubt it was congress.

[nradov]

That's not how it works. The IRS can tax profits earned from transactions in any medium of exchange (bitcoin or anything else) because Congress has specifically granted them that statutory authority. The EPA does not have blanket authority to regulate anything that might happen to negatively impact the environment. Congress could give them that authority, but has chosen not to do so.

[briandear]

It isn’t hobbling the federal government. It’s strengthening it by giving powers to Congress and the states where it belongs. It’s hobbling the executive branch to prevent them from ignoring the will of the people via Congress.

[brewdad]

The problem is that pollution easily becomes someone else's problem. If Wisconsin decides that Lake Michigan should be it's dumping ground, what recourse is there for Illinois, Indiana, or Michigan if there can be no federal oversight? Inter-state war is not really something I look forward to.

[falcolas]

Highly personal opinion:

Congress is no more respecting the will of the people than the executive branch, nor the Supreme Court.

They're all respecting their own opinions, followed only by the will of the lobbyists.

[azinman2]

Because it’s a way to fit their world view. Don’t expect consistency, this will be done per topic.

[tcmart14]

Because we are now at the point where we can just make shit up as we go along and anyone who can string together 3 words has a coherent argument for whatever they want.