West Virginia v. EPA Ruling Hampers Climate Change Action | US Politics In :60 | GZERO Media
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 07. 2024
- The US Supreme Court has shown it is willing to overturn years of precedent.
Subscribe to GZERO on CZcams: bit.ly/2TxCVnY
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC shares his perspective on US politics:
Question: what are the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of West Virginia v. EPA?
It's been a busy term for the Supreme Court, topped off this week with a ruling on the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA did not have the properly congressionally delegated authority to regulate carbon emissions. This will hamper the ability of the Biden administration to act on climate change in the absence of congressional action, which we do not expect. And more broadly could have implications for other agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.
At issue is the agency's ability to regulate in cases where Congress has not specifically laid out that they should. This is known as delegation from Congress to the agencies. And in the past, the courts have given the agencies wide latitude to pass new rules in cases where congressional statutes were ambiguous.
However, under the more conservative courts that were appointed by President Donald Trump, the courts are turning back these abilities. And a concurring opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch laid out a series of tests that limit the ability of agencies to act.
The conservatives think that courts have allowed agencies to have too much power and would prefer to see those powers concentrated in the hands of the elected representatives in Congress. Liberals argue that the administrative state requires specialized expertise to create complex rules to regulate industries that cannot be administered properly by the more political branches of government.
This will affect not only regulations dealing with climate change, but also future workplace safety regulations, such as the vaccine mandate that President Biden tried to force on large employers earlier this year, the SEC's ability to force disclosures of climate risk by publicly traded companies, and rulemaking that the Federal Trade Commission hopes to do. They're pushing data privacy standards and break up highly concentrated industries.
More broadly, with this decision and the decision to overturning Roe v. Wade, the court has indicated that it is willing to overturn years of precedent and set US policymaking on a fundamentally different and more limited path.
Sign up for GZERO’s free newsletter on global politics, Signal: bit.ly/gzerosignal
Subscribe to the GZERO podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Like GZERO on Facebook: / gzeromedia
Follow GZERO on Twitter: / gzeromedia
Follow GZERO on LinkedIn: / 18385722
GZERO Media is a multimedia publisher providing news, insights and commentary on the events shaping our world. Our properties include GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, our newsletter Signal, Puppet Regime, the GZERO World Podcast, In 60 Seconds and GZEROMedia.com
#In60Seconds #SupremeCourt #ClimateAction
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine if authority is granted to a particular agency. Not determine whether the "special agency experts" should make rules unchecked is the best solution. This should have been a 9-0 case in favor of West Virginia.
I thought that the Court should decide according to the law not the results.
Thank you!
🐞simple concept basic logic if life is not free why the hell would death be any cheaper it's not. So the question one may wonder is the spiritual cost to one's own soul and spirit for having lived and died to the lowest standards of quality for so many years now global pollution has diminished the quality of life to the point where today's people are living, dying and yielding the worst spiritual kickback that has ever been manifested since the beginning of life only getting worse. The polar opposite extreme to that is today's people should be living and dying to the highest standards of quality which would make each and every moment physically, mentally, financially and spiritually beneficial. S.R.F.
Have Congress actually pass laws
Another doozy from the SCOTUS
So much for stare decisis.
Congress gave EPA the power of enforcement. Not legislation. Congress needs to do their job. Stare decisis has its limitations.
Goodbye planet
It is doubtful that significant sacrifices can be sustained for multiple election cycles. It doesn't mean that much to most people.
Some stranger strutting a Tesla is fine. Having me pay $10 per gallon for gas, $30 lb beef, or being hot in the summer ..not worth it.
Bitches whining only means so much.
More babies, more guns, more energy!
This is the best Supreme Court ever.
More prayer!
Yes, damn that pesky Constitution which requires Congress to debate and do their jobs. We love being ruled by unelected bureaucrats, said no one ever.
Everytime I hear "climate change" I think higher taxes for the West.
How much will it cost if we do nothing though. The amount of cost to mitigate the damage will do much more harm in the long run
I hear you bro. Just don’t look up. Keep looking down and it will be alright.
@@valetudo1569 clean coal, nuclear power are already here
@@Exodus26.13Pi No such thing as clean coal. It's a myth... and nuclear still doesn't change the need for action/government spending on climate change.. which means - taxes
@@valetudo1569 Just prove that and we'll get on board. Also, what concentration of CO2 in ppm is permissible in the atmosphere before there is a "crisis"? Can't hit a target without a number, ya know.
welp, breathing was fun
No active regulation was affected by this decision.
Yup, I totally trust companies to regulate themselves and inept politicians to have the specialized knowledge to enact policy on this. Except I dont...Remind me again, are SC judges elected?
They were approved by the Senate via bi-partisan vote, so technically yes.
@@bobhabib7662 Um Technically no. Like what nonsense are you talking about. With that logic the unelected officials at the EPA are elected because they were appointed by the President.
@@conrad787 EPA officials don't get to make laws because that is not part of the function of the Executive Branch of Government.
The procedure to appoint SC judges is to have elected officials vote on their consent. So by proxy, when the voters send representatives to the Senate and those representatives vote to approve or not, the People have spoken.
There is nothing nefarious regarding SCOTUS appointments and confirmations unless you are simply a progressive that doesn't like that they follow the Constitution. The EPA by contrast, has no authority to make law, and never has. That is the difference, even if you cannot accept it.
The EPA lacks specialized knowledge for running and maintaining the power grid. That is other agencies problems. The EPA focus is on emissions, clean water, etc.
By the way, this decision had zero effect on any active EPA regulation.
What it means is, it actually takes the power out of unelected officials hands.
Un-elected judges limiting the power of other unelected officials...perhaps we should apply the same logic to judicial appointments?
@@conrad787 Nope. Judges in the United States are not there to make laws, simply to interpret them. If people want abortion in their states they'll elect representatives accordingly, it's as simple as that.
@@keithbrown3045 Except things aren't that simple. Between backroom deals, lies, propaganda (see: lies), and gerrymandering? You don't always exactly get the "will of the people" represented in government. Or legislation.
In most countries it's legislative branch that decides these things not the courts. But ultimately it's irrelevant if both sides of the American political spectrum see these institutions as illegitimate, if the United States doesn't course correct quickly it's heanded towards a 1938 Spanish style crisis.
@@keithbrown3045 When judges push an actual agenda interpreting law using originalism as a framework, misrepresent their position on settled law like abortion in order to get appointed, you end up with a court that does more to undermine the will of the people than simply interpret law. The court has been slide towards to illegitimacy since Bush v Gore, then Citizens United, now all this nonsense. I agree this is also a failure of congress to both enact policy and undermine the court by not following precedent ( see Merrick Garland ). Term limits and expanding the court would help to stop the bleeding.