Despite your very right biased comment, I don't buy the idea that congress needs to write legislation down to specific policy details that might come up with every minute aspect of what is intending to be legislated. I don't think elected politicians are capable of being knowledgeable enough to give specific guidance on the broad range of issues necessary to govern the entire country.
I mean, do you really want a US senator voting on what level of chemicals are allowed to be present in drinking water? Is that the goal here?
Right now, the corporate legacy media are working hard to paint the false narrative that the current conservative justices are extreme partisan hacks. Don't fall for their deceptions. Do your own research.
And if I do my own research and decide that the current conservative justices are extreme partisan hacks?
That’s not the level of granularity here. Using your hypothetical example about clean drinking water, Congress would need to delegate authority to EPA to regulate clean drinking water instead of EPA inferring or assuming it has that authority because of some other unrelated statute. Congress itself would not decide what a safe level of arsenic in drinking water is, EPA experts would.
But as you said the EPA only would have the authority to regulate "clean drinking water", and since arsenic isn't drinking water, then the EPA would have no authority to regulate it unless Congress specifically says so.
So yeah, they made up new rules, and yes, you're right, that the rules they made up to achieve a certain goal indicate that those goals are indeed correct.
Edit: The unsaid part of the "Major Questions" doctrine is that what it basically means is that the only decision maker in the US government is the Supreme Court.
This Supreme Court has chosen to parse Congress's bills text both strictly and loosely depending on whether it achieved their political priors. Further, they've alternatively decided to use, and disallow the usage of public statements by Congress members and/or the President for the same reason.
This is little more than a dismantling of the US govt.
"The major questions doctrine originated in two Supreme Court decisions: MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone & Telegraph in 1994 and FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation in 2000."
-- https://www.theregreview.org/2021/11/15/revesz-brunstein-reg...
Roberts was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2005.
Major "code smell" right here
> Right now, the corporate legacy media are working hard to paint the false narrative that the current conservative justices are extreme partisan hacks
Well they are, and I don't need "muh mainstream media" to tell me about it. I can draw that conclusion based on primary sources, i.e. the court opinions, the justices' own words and actions, etc.
I don't think you've read the dissenting arguments yet.
The core of this case is how do you interpret legislative text. The current Court is taking a radically strict view of legislation. They act like they are only reading the words. But in fact everyone has to interpret written words somehow. The question is what context do you use when you interpret the words.
Also keep in mind how the conservative justices were picked. Even if the justices truly decide cases based on non-partisan judicial ideologies (doubtful), the composition of the court has been picked in such a way that their decisions have conservative outcomes written all over them.
It's not like they cornered the decision into their own branch of government like they did with abortion (before Dobbs).
If there's disagreement on how a text should be interpreted I don't care whether a conservative court produces a different opinion to a liberal one.
I care whether congress still retains the ultimate authority in the matter, and in this case it does.
If congress thinks the court is wrong, it can say so.
However I think you'll find that just as there is disagreement within the court as to what this text actually means - there is just as much if not more disagreement in congress.
If congress itself is in disagreement - I think being radically strict is a good way to go.
I think it's healthy for judicial review and separations of powers for legislative interpetation to be kicked back to congress if there's any disagreement.
If Congress wants to do something, they can pass the law to do so.
Ever since the "it's not a tax healthcare penalty" was upheld by the Court as "yes it is you idiots" it's been painfully clear that Congress wants no part in actually doing their job.
This became very apparent to me after pushed Congress to pass an Authorization of Military Force around ~2014. They balked, effectively continuing the trend of delegating their war-making abilities to the executive branch.
This reminds me how was Ben Shapiro burned by conservative guy from BBC. And Shapiro called him 'liberal'.
Anything that is not regressive is by default left/liberal for these people.
You have made God from your Constitution while in other countries it is an tool. You have just one more party than China and call your self beacon of democracy. Tunnel vision.
* It only quotes one legal expert, Hajin Kim, who paints the ruling in a negative light. There are no quotes from any other legal expert with a differing viewpoint.
* It quotes from the environmental defense fund, which is on the spectrum as extremely leftwing: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-environmental-defense-fund...
* It puts high priority towards telling us how the feelings of environmental groups got hurt: "Environmental groups will be deeply concerned by the outcome as historically the 19 states that brought the case have made little progress on reducing their emissions - which is necessary to limit climate change."
* It quotes from a U.N. official, which is of course only going to have negative things to say about it. The U.N. could care less about whether a policy hurts America. The BBC also fails to mention how similar policies in the EU have led to more dependence on Russian oil, which was absolutely disastrous in hindsight. Don't knock out your current energy infrastructure when you have nothing to replace it with.
* The BBC focuses on what it perceives as the Supreme court bucking decades of precedent: "For decades, the Supreme Court has held that judges should generally defer to government agencies when interpreting federal law."
* The BBC says absolutely nothing about how the other side feels about this ruling, another major sign of their bias. Take a look at a conservative source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-rules-against-b...
“We joined WV to fight the EPA’s overreach & challenged the agency’s overly-broad interpretation allowing them to regulate almost any part of the economy, the consequences would lead to higher utility bills, job loss and overall increased energy prices. This is a huge win for MO!”
“This is a big victory for small businesses and a big defeat for the Biden administration and the regulatory state,” Ortiz said in a statement provided to The Daily Wire. “Whether it’s greenhouse gas emissions, Covid lockdowns, vaccine mandates, or scores of other issues, the Biden administration keeps claiming authority it does not possess, as the Supreme Court ruled today.”
The BBC doesn't care at all about the sheer economic damage that would have been dealt to the relevant states. The BBC also doesn't care at all about the fact that the federal bureaucracy has grown staggeringly in size and power over the past decades, or what that means for our constitutional republic. The BBC doesn't care that our courts have been ruling very much for the left for the past several decades and we are just starting to see a reversal back towards the center. And that's fine. The BBC is in Britain and shouldn't be expected to care about these things. But please don't pretend they are not left-biased on this issue.
Congress will never have the bandwidth or speed to tackle every problem via legislation. Delegating areas to expert "ministers" is the only way to have a functional government in today's complex world.
This seems like just another reframing of "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".
Truly hilarious. You should do a NewsMax comedy special
How is "economic and political significance" defined? From what I understand of the decision, it's defined as "6 of 9 people on SCOTUS don't like this regulation." And the deeper you dig into it, the more you find that these 6 people are willing to throw out just to be able to strike down this policy decision.
Supposedly, these 6 justices are advocates of textualism--the actual text, as written in the statute, should be dominant in the analysis of what can and can't be done in terms of interpretation. And here they completely ignore that in favor of trying to second-guess what Congress intended because... they can't use textualism to achieve what they want, I guess.