[Sporktacular]

"duty to force some pain on the citizenry"

You do know that coal power kills more people than any other power source right? That makes health care a hidden cost, paid by the citizenry, to subsidise an irresponsible energy industry.

Think much?

[thepasswordis]

Why is this so confusing?

Then pass a law.

I hope every coal plant on earth goes away forever. I hate coal plants. Get rid of them and PASS A LAW restricting their use.

[Sporktacular]

Have you seen how hard it is to pass a contentious law these days? Most people can agree about its merits but it's naive to act as if special interests haven't manufactured the contention and captured the regulatory and legislative processes.

We don't have the luxury of proceduralism any more.

[thepasswordis]

Think about what you’re saying. Democracy is hard so let’s throw it all away? Do you realize where that leads?

[Sporktacular]

Don't be hyperbolic. We had democracy before Coney-Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were appointed.

Hamstringing the EPA over a contrived technicality in the wording of its charter is a travesty of justice. It's public utility is obvious. It's in the name.

[phaistra]

> Have you seen how hard it is to pass a contentious law these days?

So what? Not the SC's problem.

> Most people can agree about its merits but it's naive to act as if special interests haven't manufactured the contention and captured the regulatory and legislative processes.

So if special interests have captured the regulatory body, how is letting them keep (or gain) their unelected power any better?

> We don't have the luxury of proceduralism any more.

I can use the same argument about any topic we disagree about. Do you not see the problem with this line of thinking?

[Sporktacular]

"Not the SC's problem."

Indeed, it's precisely to the contrary and actually to the new SC's advantage. Republican obstructionism is precisely why conservative judges have adopted this new commitment to originalism. But on the other hand, isn't a clean environment a problem for us all?

"So if special interests have captured the regulatory body, how is letting them keep (or gain) their unelected power any better?"

Because this executive has been trying to fix it (https://grist.org/politics/epa-joe-biden-environmental-law-e...) and congress has been trying to keep it broken (eg. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/589767-gop-sen...). This ruling takes power away from the executive and hands it to an even more captured, paralysed congress. Whether the EPA derives its mandate from the executive or the legislature makes no difference since BOTH are elected bodies. Why mindlessly repeat that red herring? Obviously the real issue is whether it's effective and working for the public interest or for special interests.

"I can use the same argument about any topic we disagree about. Do you not see the problem with this line of thinking?"

No you can't, except in cases where the importance of the procedures themselves are outweighed by the importance of what they are preventing. For a decade the SC was okay with the EPA using the clean air act to limit carbon, and then it wasn't. The only thing that changed is the political constitution of the court which has exploited technicalities and procedural hurdles to prevent the addressing of an urgent, existential threat. Or is it just a coincidence that the sudden desire for more carefully crafted legislation comes from conservatives who have always opposed stronger environmental regulation?

It's a pretty narrow, justified case I'm making against excessive proceduralism. Do you not see a problem with checking tickets for lifeboats?