Posted on 06/30/2024 5:00:30 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
The Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to discard the 40-year-old precedent established by Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council is a truly harsh blow against environmental protection and climate justice. By overruling the Chevron doctrine that required courts to defer to federal agencies when it came to implementing broadly written laws, the Supreme Court will make it much more difficult for the federal government to regulate pollution — including, but by no means limited to greenhouse gas emissions — among many other issues related to health, labor, consumer welfare, taxation, and on and on.
I am profoundly upset at the damage that this decision will almost certainly inflict on our environment and the fight against climate change. But more philosophically, this decision is also upsetting because it represents a demotion of science and expertise in government.
In the federal government, agencies are where detailed knowledge about specific, complex issues reside; in a healthy society, they would have some authority to manage those issues. In other words, the agencies are the ones that know stuff, and if government is to be effective, they should be able to do stuff.......
My colleague at Columbia, Gil Eyal, draws on a range of examples in his book, “The Crisis of Expertise,” to show how neither expert knowledge nor electoral politics on its own can reliably deliver public trust, or solve complex problems like climate change that have both scientific and political dimensions. Slogans like “listen to the science” gloss over this complexity. So one can’t simply say as a matter of principle that the experts in agencies should have some specific amount of power and no less. But they need to have some power; experts and elected officials need to collaborate for the system to work in the public interest.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
CNN and the rest of the leftist will be singing a different tune about this when Trump’s government starts making regulations ...
Well spoken. At least deference is not just a slam dunk now. We can shop judges just as well. Alas though, in hand grenades, atom bombs and legalese, nobody really wins.
“So the notion that this will curtail federal rule making is likely wrong. “
My state attorney has challenged illegal bureaucrat diktats several times.
I expect that states challenging illegal bureaucrat laws will increase. State attorneys general have banded together to challenge arbitrary diktats from the ATF. I expect the trend to continue and grow larger.
26 Republican attorneys general sue to block Biden rule requiring background checks at gun shows
https://apnews.com/article/biden-gun-show-background-checks-lawsuit-25b1d7eb7711939e73bee89838f4c318
About the only thing I can say is maybe CNN start a GoFunMe (sp) page to fight the Mom Nature.
I was watching leftist commentators on this matter last night. To hear what they believe is baffling as they put tyranny, dictatorship and communism along side preservation of democracy? Really? Of course the never even mention Republic. They idolize government to fill their every need and want. What fawning weak bastards!
Good question. Probably not. At least not without case by case rehearing process. Roberts addressed this, stare decisis.
good.
If you want to push the man-made global warming hoax, you will need to do so by electing people and passing laws!
Imagine that!
I am not qualified to argue, I’m only an engineer and businessman, with you but you are swimming against the current of some major legal minds and my considerable experience against regulatory activism and administrative law. Chevron opened the flood gates of regulation writing and made most resistance futile. Most of my nearly 50 year career was covered by Chevron. It was as prevalent in business as SOX has been since Enron.
“Getting rid of Chevron has benefits on so many fronts”
What entity do you prefer to provide our needed fuels?
Seems to me that if my livelihood was dependent upon research grants, based upon a bunch of BS regulations, I too would consider the Chevron decision “a truly harsh blow against environmental protection and climate justice.”
Headline, translated:
SCOTUS empowers the citizens against the government pushing a harshly punitive fraud.
Indeed....sweeter than wine...
Well said!
No doubt this may increase legal challenges to administrative rules, but the truth is there have been no cases in the past few years where the court ruled based on Chevron. Our legislature debated a bill this past session that would have outlawed Chevron in Oklahoma. I was tasked with researching the issue. I could not find a ruling in the last few years based on Chevron. This ruling was expected in most circles. I know that the media and liberals are clutching their pearls, but this was not unexpected. That was the findings of my research several months ago. I truly don’t think it will curtail much rule making much at all. The bottom line is the courts just cannot give deference to the angency interpretation of what the rule means. But liberal judges can still uphold them. They just can’t do so because the federal agency says, ‘we meant this.’ Not much will actually change.
“Democracy” = The majority vote determines what happens. (Ignore for the moment that America is not a “democracy”.) The Democrats are FROTHING AT THE MOUTH over the word “democracy”. Well, UNLESS the majority of the people do not hold “Green” views with respect to the policies effectiveness or costs. THEN Government must FORCE them to accept “what is right.”
There is no such things ad man made climate change. The earth’s climate does change and has changed since day 1 billions of years ago.
The only thing man can do is to adept which is what humans do very well.
Less than 20 thousand years ago North America was covered in glaciers the Sahara Desert was lush and green.
Man has nothing to do with earth’s climate. It is the sun, the moon, the earth’s rotation, the tilt on its axis, the oceans and volcano all of which contribute to earth’s climate.
Every green law, rule or regulation is designed to control people not change the climate (since they can not).
Since being handed down, Chevron had become among the most frequently cited cases in American administrative law.[3] Over 17,000 decisions from lower federal courts had cited the case in their rulings and 70 decisions by the Supreme Court itself had cited Chevron.[4] Between 2003 and 2013, circuit courts applied Chevron in 77% of decisions regarding regulatory disputes.[5]
Thank God.
Fact: The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to the Communist Party's ability to use climate change as one of their methods to retain absolute power over the American serfs...
Meanwhile, there hasn’t been an EF5 tornado anywhere on the planet since 2013. (Before then it was an annual or semi-annual event).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.