Not entirely. CIA was authorized by Congress. But, the ruling can be applied to both the agency and their powers. Both have to be authorized by Congress.
Congress authorized the CIA to exist but not to make rules and laws on its behalf, imho this is why this ruling does slice and dice the Farm considerably.
IRS will be gone in next year or two, I guarantee it. Unauthorized money funneler for foreign agency (Fed res). Can’t even have it on continental US soil, that’s why the headquarters is in Puerto Rico.
According to Wikipedia (I know, but this is probably reliable) the IRS headquarters is the Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20224.
ATF, CIA, DoE, EPA, .. We're already out of order, but I would agree on the ATF being next, but the TSA, NIH, NSA, and the IRS need to follow closely behind.
This could give us the oppertunity to kill it. But it could get dicey if they claim the ability to use emergency powers was authorized. Wed have to prove it wasnt a real emergency
Unfortunatly am broke college age student, so i really hope some older pedes out there are able to get the ball rolling. I really hope it doesnt come down to my generation cause thats going to be tough
There would have to be massive pressure on congressmen regarding the skepticism of the origin of the virus. Were getting closer to that with the lab leak angle. With restrictions loosened people have generally stopped caring though, we would need another surge of mask nazis, perhaps this upcoming november?
I think the economic angle would get people to harass their elected/selected officials, to try and get back some of their lost money. You know, because we seem to have so much to send everywhere else. If we hold out hope for recovery or reparations, a groundswell of class suits could arise, and they'll take any and all training to push them.
The section you quoted is nothing more than hyperbole from the dissenting opinion (leftists). The decision did not "strip the EPA of it's authority" - it stated the EPA exceeded the authority that it had been granted by law. I'm not a lawyer but what the opinion seemed to state was that by enacting new rules that did not actual spell out a "system" to reduce emissions, but rather a cap and trade scheme, the EPA exceeded their authority granted under the Clean Air Act. The SCOTUS shut down their grift scheme (cap and trade) - no wonder the leftists are so mad about this decision.
"When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people's representatives."
That alone ""SHOULD"" lead into massive investigations of corruption within the EPA, and IF Charges are brought, beyond Firings, of the personnel, then yeah, the loss of agents alone should gut the agency just enough to make it ineffective, and impotent.....
People will be quitting or begging for transfers.....
But the only question before the Court is more narrow: whether the “best system of emission reduction” iden- tified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For the reasons given, the answer is no.
They are specifically addressing the Clean Power Plan.
There's a secondary point you bring up here that I'd encourage everyone to look at when they get time. Whenever there's a 6-3 ruling that involves Roberts doing his effing job that leaves the 3 liberals to write the dissent, their prose is disturbingly laughable.
Many of you will be shocked (I know I was) at how laughably emotional many of their dissenting pieces are. Often there's very little reference to any kind of precedent, just whining. This isn't always the case, but it is the case a disturbingly large amount of time.
Kagan and Sotomayor are well known for their decisions being emotional and not having any legal substance whatsoever. How they became judges, let alone Supreme Court justices is beyond me
As we have seen many times: "Our rights do not stop at your feelings!" I read the opinions a while ago and this one is pure SJW all the way and NOT covered in any way by the Consitution that I can see.
Similar to the gun rights case where the court did not throw out gun licensing as unconstitutional, rather, it only threw out requiring a showing of a specific need in order to get a license
Sure, but there are lots of other ""Rules"", that they simply invented out of thin air, and pushed on the States and Public....
I'm hopeful that the Catalytic Converters and Diesel Exhaust Fluid{literally Piss and Distilled Water}, are two of those things that can be 100% tossed out....
It'll drive the climate Change Glowies wildly insane, and within 1 year, we will all benefit from larger Plant Produce and Production.....
Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. (Page 31)
They never do. They set precedent under which lower courts must decide other cases with the same essential question. I.e., abortion isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution, which doesn't even prohibit federal financial support for it. It will also have an effect on law making. Wheels of justice turn slowly. Sorry, but the quickest method to the solution is the political realm, which in our system should mean the people.
"And what would you do, Roper? Knock down all the laws to get to the devil? And when the devil turned round on you, how would you stand in the wind that blew then, the laws all being flat"? (Thomas More, Man for All Seasons...from memory so may be inexact.)
Exactly. But if you point that out prepare to be down voted. According to some this is the second coming of the 4th of July and all agencies are going to be shut down. Not by a long shot. Now we get to wait years to see if any other cases can use this as a precedent. It's NOT what we were hoping it would be.
I don’t know. It may not take years. Depending on how midterms go. And then 2024. I think we have a lot more winning to do. The main thing is here is the precedent has been set. 3-4 letter agencies are targeted. It’s like chess. And a major piece was moved, devastating the opponents end game. It’s cool.
The Uniparty actors never wanted to be the face of the tyrannical regulations they happily impose on the plebes but avoid themselves. They must be, always and forever going forward, to answer for whatever rules they wish to invent.
“ When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regula- tions as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s repre- sentatives. In our Republic, “[i]t is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the govern- ment of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810). Because today’s decision helps safeguard that foundational constitutional promise.” - GORSUCH
So, the same standard would be applied for executive orders/regulatory agency mandates that violate existing laws in other areas as well. Election and immigration laws are two such examples that are easy to point to.
Or it could be said that the Act burdened the EPA with policy making decisions that it did not have the budget or the expertise or the constitutional authority to make. Ultimately, if Congress makes an unconstitutional law by mistake or oversight, the president should return it unsigned. This calls into question all injury-prevention legislation. Should we be free to make stupid mistakes and get sued or charged for negligence? Looks like that decision should at least be left up to the states.
I won't be breathing that freely until every single building in this once-great union cannot require you to wear a face mask or show jab proof anymore.
Certainly not like the states and or local governments are incapable of enforcing air quality laws.
Hell. Annoy the lazy bastards in congress enough and they may just pass a law. Granted we’ve been conditioned to think of Congress as a gaggle of useless cunts. Which is in large part true. But their job is technically to make and pass laws. Even if they’ve been bound and determined to do anything but that for decades.
It’s time for good old fashioned civic involvement again. Petition the Government. Run for office. Start Charities, Volunteer. That kind of stuff. Something that is regrettably anathema to a large portion of the population these days.
Well, they've been passing off the hard stuff to the agency beaurocrats in their laziness. Now they must debate and put their mark on controversial issues for all to see. So they may become less lazy out of necessity.
The EPA's view of its authority, Roberts writes, "was not only unprecedented; it also effected a 'fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of . . . regulation' into an entirely different knd."
the only interpretive question before
us, and the only one we answer, is more narrow: whether
the “best system of emission reduction” identified by EPA
in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted
to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For
the reasons given, the answer is no.5
Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will
force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to
generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis
of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187
(1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the
authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in
Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence
rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant
to a clear delegation from that representative body.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to
“the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”
Reading Kagan's Dissenting Opinions is a two drink minimum. The Chicago gun ruling when she was new to the court, her Dissenting Opinion should have been written in crayons.
I read once that congressional officials are ten miles wide on the number of topics they cover and ten inches deep in terms of the depth of knowledge on any one topic. Too true.
There isnt a summary yet unfortunatly gonna have to read it. I have no time right now im supposed to be working but i had my eyes on the SC website so i could post asap. Will read in detail at lunch in a couple hours
U.S. Federal Law is supposed to be made by the U.S. Congress.
The U.S. Congress is supposed to be freely and fairly elected by We, the People, so that we know exactly who they are and what the hell they're doing.
U.S. Federal Law is NOT supposed to be made by nameless, faceless, unknown bureaucrats whom Congress "delegates" to decide how things will be run.
...nameless, faceless, unknown bureaucrats who can be bribed, blackmailed, or threatened into doing exactly what the Congressional "delegators" want them to do.
Only twice in our nation's history has the Court struck down laws on the basis of the non-delegation doctrine. It's kind of a joke in law school because so rarely has the Court enforced it - and that was during the FDR years when he threatened to stack the Court because they were striking down all his New Deal legislation.
Non-delegation means that Congress has the power to legislate, and cannot delegate their authority to the executive branch to an extent that is deemed too wide. The bar they set though, is like a limbo bar that is 8 feet tall. It's called the intelligible principle test, and it's super easy for the government to meet.
Without getting into the details (unless somebody wants me to) let me just say that this is a HUGE decision.
edit: See my response to "horseypatriot" for more info if you are curious.
The Constitution grants legislative powers to Congress, article 1. Congress has the authority to delegate some of their powers to other branches of government (executive article 2 or judiciary article 3).
So when Congress writes a law establishing an agency, they can give that agency rulemaking authority (regulations and article 1 powers), adjudicatory authority (a judicial power and article 3 powers), and/or enforcement powers (article 2 executive powers). So Congress can grant to an agency the powers of all three branches of government. The genesis for this power of Congress to create agencies stems from the APA (Admin Procedure Act). So why can Congress do this? Isn't this a separation of powers issue? The Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution grants government the authority to make rules or establish agencies to carry out valid exercises of Constitutional power. If Congress does have the ability to pass a law outlawing some type of behavior, then it's necessary and proper for them to have an enforcement mechanism. Now, you might say that the President is entrusted with faithfully executing the laws. That is true. But when the executive branch lacks the requisite knowledge or skills to regulate a particular area (for example, environmental regulations), Congress can validly create an agency to do just that.
One of the ways plaintiffs can go about challenging subsequent rules or adjudications by an agency is to argue that the agency exceeded their statutory authority. So for example, Congress passed a statute creating the EPA. This is the EPA's "organic statute". Can the EPA then go and make rules that regulate smartphone usage? No. Why? Because it's beyond their mandate. Agencies can create rules, but they cannot legislate.
Why can't the EPA do this? Because the organic statute creating the EPA must have what is called an "intelligible principle". I won't go too deep into this next part because it would just take way too long, but if you want a more clear picture, look up Whitman v. American Trucking. Suffice to say, that the Court held that each organic statute must contain a short description of what the agency is tasked to do, and the powers it can exercise.
But the intelligible principle idea is so very broad. That's why I say it's a joke in law school, because even the most vague statement is enough to pass Constitutional muster. So if the EPA organic statute said "The EPA shall have the authority to rulemake, adjudicate, and enforce regulations that arise under this statute, in order to effect the task of improving environmental qualities of the US" it would likely be enough. You may think wow, so if the EPA decided that production and mining of silicon in the aggregate contributed even slightly to worse air quality, they can regulate them out of existence. And to an extent, you are correct. However, Scalia made a very important ruling that limited this exercise of power.
"Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes". Cost was a big issue in Whitman. If Congress did not give direction as to whether to consider something like compliance cost or industry effect, does the agency have the implicit authority to regulate to such an extent? The answer is no. That's because if Congress did intend for the agency to wield such power they would have expressly stated so. If our organic statute just says to help improve environmental quality but not to consider industry cost, then that term is implicated by law. So that's a good thing.
Analysis of non-delegation issues:
What is the scope of the delegation?
That's why we just discussed cost. If cost is not a threshold issue, because if it isn't, then under a case called Chevron, courts have to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of their organic statute. (Much more to it than that, but Chevron would require a very different post, again I can go over later if there is interest). In short, ambiguous language in an organic statute can be interpreted (note, not "cured") by an agency, and that would remain rulemaking (constitutional) and not legislating (unconstitutional).
This is also a question about whether Congress delegated rulemaking or legislative powers which I got to a bit premature in my analysis under 1. If cost is NOT ambiguous, then the Court wouldn't have to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation. The test for whether something is rulemaking or legislative is the heart of the intelligible principle standard. But like mentioned previously, it's a low bar. All that is needed is general guidance, not determinate criteria. Some sliding scale is noted, in that the larger the scope, the more criteria are needed, but still, it's a ridiculously low bar. And THAT is the subject of this new ruling.
The idea, at least historically to the Court, is that nondelegation is fine as is because if Congress gives too much power to an agency, it gets struck down (but again, I find this a weak argument because of it only happening twice). The next rationale is that agencies will tend to interpret a broad intelligible principle in a narrow way as to avoid being sued. I think this is weak too because as we can see, agencies exceed their scope all the time (in my opinion) and it's hard to sue them for many people because of standing issues.
There is more I could talk about, but in the interest of not writing a book here, I'll end it with that. Basically, this ruling goes after the intelligilbe principle test, which is the lynchpin that holds together basically all the modern jurisprudence of administrative law. If the Court gives non-delegation teeth, boy, this might fundamentally change the way agencies rulemake and adjudicate in this country. Its implications are massive and I cannot wait to see how it pans out.
LFG!!!!!!!!!! Get rid of all the 3 letter agencies except ICE. We need ICE, Border Patrol and maybe the US Marshals. Every other thing can be delegated to the states.
Border enforcement and immigration just happen to be one of the few responsibilities originally owned by the federal government. So ICE and Border Patrol would be legally preserved or expanded even as the other three letter agencies die.
If I’m reading the excerpts right, it’s saying Congress gave EPA authority, but not this much broad authority. If they want them to have authority over something specific, they need to pass a law giving that specific authority to that and nothing else. But maybe I’m reading it wrong
It was never going to abolish the EPA, we would hear much more shrieking from the left if that was the case. But this sets precedent for all fed agencies to abide by specific laws and power given to them, if they start doing shit that hasnt been specifically approved by congress then they can be sued
I'm curious how they'll prove if an agency has specific powers or not. I'm assuming a lot of them are pretty vague, so it'll be fun to see what they actually can and can't do.
Also, curious if this will apply only to alphabet agencies created by executive order or all alphabet agencies?
But the only question before the Court
is more narrow: whether the “best system of emission reduction” iden-
tified by EPA in the Clean Powe r Plan was within the authority
granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For the
reasons given, the answer is no. Pp. 28–31.
985 F. 3d 914, reversed and remanded.
Unfortunately i think youre right that its not as broad as we hoped, however i still think this sets a precedent for more lawsuits in the future. This ruling tells us that theyre overstepping power under the guise of "solving todays energy crisis". Theyre creating legislation based on what they personally think is best, not what congress has specifically authorized them to do. Sound familiar? Cause thats what they do all the time. Now theres precedent to bring it to court.
Things changed in October 2015, when EPA promulgated two rules addressing carbon dioxide pollution from power plants—one for new plants under Section 111(b), the other for existing plants under Section 111(d). Both were premised on the Agency’s earlier finding that carbon dioxide is an “air pollutant” that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” by causing climate change. 80 Fed. Reg. 64530. Carbon dioxide is not subject
to a NAAQS and has not been listed as a toxic pollutant.
I'm still amazed that people can claim that CO2 is a pollutant. I'm not a biologist but I'm pretty sure we'd die without C02 in the air as I think all the plants would die.
Gorsuch: “Under that doctrine’s terms, admin agencies must be able to point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ when they claim the power to make decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’”
Can we talk about potential ramifications please? Before celebrating need to understand if it can be torn apart based on some detail when trying to apply to other agencies - fbi, sec etc
It seems this ruling alone didn't change a whole lot by itself, but it set a precedent for 3 letter agencies to be sued for overstepping their authority. So it seems to have opened the flood gates for future lawsuits and change.
It’s more about power. Think deepstate. As Gregg Phillips said...agencies like EPA are what built the deepstate. And entrenched them. Now we the people, can see. We can see whose allowing certain decisions to take place. Through Congress. And...if the good guys control Congress. Get ready for who knows what! Exciting times. What happen today is the deepstate being drag into the light. Exactly what we want.
Please forgive me for being retarded, but does anyone know if this ruling will eventually affect emissions laws pertaining to diesel vehicles and the need to use DEF fluid? Ie: will we finally be able to take them into a dealership/shop to have this particularly stupid system disabled—legally? Because that would be awesome.
The big question is what will this do to lower fuel prices? The oil companies have a lot of regulations in place. Will any be lessened or removed because of this?
Let's go alphabetical, ATF then Dept. of Education
Will it include the CIA?
Not entirely. CIA was authorized by Congress. But, the ruling can be applied to both the agency and their powers. Both have to be authorized by Congress.
Can Congress also withdraw authorization of the CIA making it defunct and defunded?
They could if enough are not Cia stoolies.
True.
Sure. All they have to do is pass a budget with no dollars allocated to the cia.
Thanks. I think all of these agencies need to be defunded and re-thought under a different organization umbrella.
They'll just get around it by continuing to traffic drugs and underage children.
Congress authorized the CIA to exist but not to make rules and laws on its behalf, imho this is why this ruling does slice and dice the Farm considerably.
same with IRS unfortunately
IRS will be gone in next year or two, I guarantee it. Unauthorized money funneler for foreign agency (Fed res). Can’t even have it on continental US soil, that’s why the headquarters is in Puerto Rico.
Wait who's HQ is in PR?
IRS
According to Wikipedia (I know, but this is probably reliable) the IRS headquarters is the Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20224.
Corporate charter is what he is saying
That’s what they say but from what I’ve read in the past from several sources, the actual headquarters is in Puerto Rico.
1111 you say? Interesting.
Agree
All of them were authorized by Congress. What is at stake is the agencies independent rule making power.
Which I hope means all of the rules they HAVE made are null and void.
I think the Cia was an executive order. Time to rescind
ATF, CIA, DoE, EPA, .. We're already out of order, but I would agree on the ATF being next, but the TSA, NIH, NSA, and the IRS need to follow closely behind.
What about the NIH - and the jab mandate?
Does this KILL the Jab Mandate?
This could give us the oppertunity to kill it. But it could get dicey if they claim the ability to use emergency powers was authorized. Wed have to prove it wasnt a real emergency
Unfortunatly am broke college age student, so i really hope some older pedes out there are able to get the ball rolling. I really hope it doesnt come down to my generation cause thats going to be tough
Can we just ask for proof of an actual virus having been isolated from the wild?
There would have to be massive pressure on congressmen regarding the skepticism of the origin of the virus. Were getting closer to that with the lab leak angle. With restrictions loosened people have generally stopped caring though, we would need another surge of mask nazis, perhaps this upcoming november?
I think the economic angle would get people to harass their elected/selected officials, to try and get back some of their lost money. You know, because we seem to have so much to send everywhere else. If we hold out hope for recovery or reparations, a groundswell of class suits could arise, and they'll take any and all training to push them.
ThTs not impossible
IRS !!!!
The section you quoted is nothing more than hyperbole from the dissenting opinion (leftists). The decision did not "strip the EPA of it's authority" - it stated the EPA exceeded the authority that it had been granted by law. I'm not a lawyer but what the opinion seemed to state was that by enacting new rules that did not actual spell out a "system" to reduce emissions, but rather a cap and trade scheme, the EPA exceeded their authority granted under the Clean Air Act. The SCOTUS shut down their grift scheme (cap and trade) - no wonder the leftists are so mad about this decision.
"When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people's representatives."
Very.
That seems like a shot specifically at Obama right there :D
Obama on multiple occasions threatened Congress that if they didn’t do something, he had a pen and a phone and would just do executive orders.
I’m just saying the majority of the court is dunking on him… I don’t think this will effect executive orders, though rhetorically it is a warning.
That alone ""SHOULD"" lead into massive investigations of corruption within the EPA, and IF Charges are brought, beyond Firings, of the personnel, then yeah, the loss of agents alone should gut the agency just enough to make it ineffective, and impotent.....
People will be quitting or begging for transfers.....
That’s a quote from Kagan’s dissent.
The bottom of page 6 has the court’s opinion:
They are specifically addressing the Clean Power Plan.
There's a secondary point you bring up here that I'd encourage everyone to look at when they get time. Whenever there's a 6-3 ruling that involves Roberts doing his effing job that leaves the 3 liberals to write the dissent, their prose is disturbingly laughable.
Many of you will be shocked (I know I was) at how laughably emotional many of their dissenting pieces are. Often there's very little reference to any kind of precedent, just whining. This isn't always the case, but it is the case a disturbingly large amount of time.
Kagan and Sotomayor are well known for their decisions being emotional and not having any legal substance whatsoever. How they became judges, let alone Supreme Court justices is beyond me
I guess the answer to that question is corruption
Well, Obama did that, so...
As we have seen many times: "Our rights do not stop at your feelings!" I read the opinions a while ago and this one is pure SJW all the way and NOT covered in any way by the Consitution that I can see.
Truth.
Similar to the gun rights case where the court did not throw out gun licensing as unconstitutional, rather, it only threw out requiring a showing of a specific need in order to get a license
Sure, but there are lots of other ""Rules"", that they simply invented out of thin air, and pushed on the States and Public....
I'm hopeful that the Catalytic Converters and Diesel Exhaust Fluid{literally Piss and Distilled Water}, are two of those things that can be 100% tossed out....
It'll drive the climate Change Glowies wildly insane, and within 1 year, we will all benefit from larger Plant Produce and Production.....
So have they narrowed the focus of the decision so much that there won't be the domino affect we hoped for with the other agencies? Edit:
u/sleepydude gave me some perspective in another post.
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXygwp7g/so-correct-me-if-im-wrong-but-be/
They never do. They set precedent under which lower courts must decide other cases with the same essential question. I.e., abortion isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution, which doesn't even prohibit federal financial support for it. It will also have an effect on law making. Wheels of justice turn slowly. Sorry, but the quickest method to the solution is the political realm, which in our system should mean the people.
"And what would you do, Roper? Knock down all the laws to get to the devil? And when the devil turned round on you, how would you stand in the wind that blew then, the laws all being flat"? (Thomas More, Man for All Seasons...from memory so may be inexact.)
"IT MUST BE DONE BY LAW...," Donald Trump.
Exactly. But if you point that out prepare to be down voted. According to some this is the second coming of the 4th of July and all agencies are going to be shut down. Not by a long shot. Now we get to wait years to see if any other cases can use this as a precedent. It's NOT what we were hoping it would be.
I don’t know. It may not take years. Depending on how midterms go. And then 2024. I think we have a lot more winning to do. The main thing is here is the precedent has been set. 3-4 letter agencies are targeted. It’s like chess. And a major piece was moved, devastating the opponents end game. It’s cool.
Yeah it feels like the SC just put a bunch of delegated power back in the hands of Congress right before the red wave.
Delegated RESPONSIBILITY
The Uniparty actors never wanted to be the face of the tyrannical regulations they happily impose on the plebes but avoid themselves. They must be, always and forever going forward, to answer for whatever rules they wish to invent.
DEVOLUTION IS REAL!!!!
Don't forget to thank God for this...
ALL THE GLORY TO GOD! IN JESUS NAME, AMEN!
Amen! 🙌
Amen
“ When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regula- tions as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s repre- sentatives. In our Republic, “[i]t is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the govern- ment of society.” Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810). Because today’s decision helps safeguard that foundational constitutional promise.” - GORSUCH
"Our Republic", not "oUr dEmOcRaCy".
So, the same standard would be applied for executive orders/regulatory agency mandates that violate existing laws in other areas as well. Election and immigration laws are two such examples that are easy to point to.
Or it could be said that the Act burdened the EPA with policy making decisions that it did not have the budget or the expertise or the constitutional authority to make. Ultimately, if Congress makes an unconstitutional law by mistake or oversight, the president should return it unsigned. This calls into question all injury-prevention legislation. Should we be free to make stupid mistakes and get sued or charged for negligence? Looks like that decision should at least be left up to the states.
A. Men!
Libs are saying “enjoy your last clean breath” So……
Au contraire, ill be taking my first breath of stress free fresh air in a long time
The air of freeeeddddooommmmm........😁
I won't be breathing that freely until every single building in this once-great union cannot require you to wear a face mask or show jab proof anymore.
But this is certainly cause for rejoicing.
LOL...we need a reeee barometer.
Ree- rometer
Ba-REE-meter
Sounds like a nice meme could come from your comment! :D
Whenever they ree, we celebrate for free.
…oooor maybe the head of the snake has slowly been cut off and it’s only now that the snake realizes it’s cleft of its body.
They never want to be the face of the economy-killing tyrannical regulations being imposed on us.
Senate has a R majority becuase some D is sick or something
Rolling Stone just put out an article: The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that the planet should burn! 🤣
Rolling Stone is the Real Raw News of left wing politics.
Certainly not like the states and or local governments are incapable of enforcing air quality laws.
Hell. Annoy the lazy bastards in congress enough and they may just pass a law. Granted we’ve been conditioned to think of Congress as a gaggle of useless cunts. Which is in large part true. But their job is technically to make and pass laws. Even if they’ve been bound and determined to do anything but that for decades.
It’s time for good old fashioned civic involvement again. Petition the Government. Run for office. Start Charities, Volunteer. That kind of stuff. Something that is regrettably anathema to a large portion of the population these days.
Well, they've been passing off the hard stuff to the agency beaurocrats in their laziness. Now they must debate and put their mark on controversial issues for all to see. So they may become less lazy out of necessity.
someone tldr it...so many worrrds
The EPA's view of its authority, Roberts writes, "was not only unprecedented; it also effected a 'fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of . . . regulation' into an entirely different knd."
This passage is the good part.
the only interpretive question before us, and the only one we answer, is more narrow: whether the “best system of emission reduction” identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For the reasons given, the answer is no.5
Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
And kagans dissent is a good summary too. Lol
Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”
The idiot kagan also said this. Lol. Preach sister
First, Members of Congress often don’t know enough— and know they don’t know enough—to regulate sensibly on an issue.
Reading Kagan's Dissenting Opinions is a two drink minimum. The Chicago gun ruling when she was new to the court, her Dissenting Opinion should have been written in crayons.
I read once that congressional officials are ten miles wide on the number of topics they cover and ten inches deep in terms of the depth of knowledge on any one topic. Too true.
And its the staff (a revolving door from lobby firms) that cover the ten miles and 9 and a half of those inches.
There isnt a summary yet unfortunatly gonna have to read it. I have no time right now im supposed to be working but i had my eyes on the SC website so i could post asap. Will read in detail at lunch in a couple hours
This is what I got from it:
U.S. Federal Law is supposed to be made by the U.S. Congress.
The U.S. Congress is supposed to be freely and fairly elected by We, the People, so that we know exactly who they are and what the hell they're doing.
U.S. Federal Law is NOT supposed to be made by nameless, faceless, unknown bureaucrats whom Congress "delegates" to decide how things will be run.
...nameless, faceless, unknown bureaucrats who can be bribed, blackmailed, or threatened into doing exactly what the Congressional "delegators" want them to do.
Lawyer here.
This is huge.
Only twice in our nation's history has the Court struck down laws on the basis of the non-delegation doctrine. It's kind of a joke in law school because so rarely has the Court enforced it - and that was during the FDR years when he threatened to stack the Court because they were striking down all his New Deal legislation.
Non-delegation means that Congress has the power to legislate, and cannot delegate their authority to the executive branch to an extent that is deemed too wide. The bar they set though, is like a limbo bar that is 8 feet tall. It's called the intelligible principle test, and it's super easy for the government to meet.
Without getting into the details (unless somebody wants me to) let me just say that this is a HUGE decision.
edit: See my response to "horseypatriot" for more info if you are curious.
Please do!
Ok, sure.
The Constitution grants legislative powers to Congress, article 1. Congress has the authority to delegate some of their powers to other branches of government (executive article 2 or judiciary article 3).
So when Congress writes a law establishing an agency, they can give that agency rulemaking authority (regulations and article 1 powers), adjudicatory authority (a judicial power and article 3 powers), and/or enforcement powers (article 2 executive powers). So Congress can grant to an agency the powers of all three branches of government. The genesis for this power of Congress to create agencies stems from the APA (Admin Procedure Act). So why can Congress do this? Isn't this a separation of powers issue? The Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution grants government the authority to make rules or establish agencies to carry out valid exercises of Constitutional power. If Congress does have the ability to pass a law outlawing some type of behavior, then it's necessary and proper for them to have an enforcement mechanism. Now, you might say that the President is entrusted with faithfully executing the laws. That is true. But when the executive branch lacks the requisite knowledge or skills to regulate a particular area (for example, environmental regulations), Congress can validly create an agency to do just that.
One of the ways plaintiffs can go about challenging subsequent rules or adjudications by an agency is to argue that the agency exceeded their statutory authority. So for example, Congress passed a statute creating the EPA. This is the EPA's "organic statute". Can the EPA then go and make rules that regulate smartphone usage? No. Why? Because it's beyond their mandate. Agencies can create rules, but they cannot legislate.
Why can't the EPA do this? Because the organic statute creating the EPA must have what is called an "intelligible principle". I won't go too deep into this next part because it would just take way too long, but if you want a more clear picture, look up Whitman v. American Trucking. Suffice to say, that the Court held that each organic statute must contain a short description of what the agency is tasked to do, and the powers it can exercise.
But the intelligible principle idea is so very broad. That's why I say it's a joke in law school, because even the most vague statement is enough to pass Constitutional muster. So if the EPA organic statute said "The EPA shall have the authority to rulemake, adjudicate, and enforce regulations that arise under this statute, in order to effect the task of improving environmental qualities of the US" it would likely be enough. You may think wow, so if the EPA decided that production and mining of silicon in the aggregate contributed even slightly to worse air quality, they can regulate them out of existence. And to an extent, you are correct. However, Scalia made a very important ruling that limited this exercise of power.
"Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes". Cost was a big issue in Whitman. If Congress did not give direction as to whether to consider something like compliance cost or industry effect, does the agency have the implicit authority to regulate to such an extent? The answer is no. That's because if Congress did intend for the agency to wield such power they would have expressly stated so. If our organic statute just says to help improve environmental quality but not to consider industry cost, then that term is implicated by law. So that's a good thing.
Analysis of non-delegation issues:
That's why we just discussed cost. If cost is not a threshold issue, because if it isn't, then under a case called Chevron, courts have to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of their organic statute. (Much more to it than that, but Chevron would require a very different post, again I can go over later if there is interest). In short, ambiguous language in an organic statute can be interpreted (note, not "cured") by an agency, and that would remain rulemaking (constitutional) and not legislating (unconstitutional).
The idea, at least historically to the Court, is that nondelegation is fine as is because if Congress gives too much power to an agency, it gets struck down (but again, I find this a weak argument because of it only happening twice). The next rationale is that agencies will tend to interpret a broad intelligible principle in a narrow way as to avoid being sued. I think this is weak too because as we can see, agencies exceed their scope all the time (in my opinion) and it's hard to sue them for many people because of standing issues.
There is more I could talk about, but in the interest of not writing a book here, I'll end it with that. Basically, this ruling goes after the intelligilbe principle test, which is the lynchpin that holds together basically all the modern jurisprudence of administrative law. If the Court gives non-delegation teeth, boy, this might fundamentally change the way agencies rulemake and adjudicate in this country. Its implications are massive and I cannot wait to see how it pans out.
Thank you!! You just shed so much light on this that I did not know. It’s a lot to unpack but this helps so much!!
Lawfren, this needs to be its own post!
Thank you for taking the time to write that out.
I am happy to. This is a great community
Thanks!
I second that motion.
Thank you for this insight mr lawyer fren!
By all means go into details if you want, im considering going into law school/ criminal justice school so this is super interesting to me
See my reply above
Thank you! Very excited to see where this may lead. Ill be keeping a close eye on the SC to see if any more cases like this come around
Would LOVE a deep dive from your perspective. I’m still not sure how to take this decision and would like your insight, please.
See reply above
Leftist running out and buying o2 bottles and masks right now.
Like Mel Brooks in Spaceballs
u/#burry
It's a thing of beauty.
Now do the IRS!!!
LFG!!!!!!!!!! Get rid of all the 3 letter agencies except ICE. We need ICE, Border Patrol and maybe the US Marshals. Every other thing can be delegated to the states.
Border enforcement and immigration just happen to be one of the few responsibilities originally owned by the federal government. So ICE and Border Patrol would be legally preserved or expanded even as the other three letter agencies die.
World of Warcraft as a teenager has made my first interpretation for LFG be "Looking for group" and that will never change.
HAHAHA! Same here, every time I see LFG I think I'm reading the looking for group channel. xD
Oh good, I’m not the only one, lol. 👍
LFG DM - 21 pally. Can tank!
Omg me too!
Oh i read it as Let's Fucking Go!
Supposedly it would only affect the agencies created by executive order.
If I’m reading the excerpts right, it’s saying Congress gave EPA authority, but not this much broad authority. If they want them to have authority over something specific, they need to pass a law giving that specific authority to that and nothing else. But maybe I’m reading it wrong
This is correct
So EPA isn't going anywhere. Everyone was hoping this would affect other alphabet agencies. I'm not so sure it will.
It was never going to abolish the EPA, we would hear much more shrieking from the left if that was the case. But this sets precedent for all fed agencies to abide by specific laws and power given to them, if they start doing shit that hasnt been specifically approved by congress then they can be sued
Hahaha! Yeah, a lot of libs were paranoid though.
I'm curious how they'll prove if an agency has specific powers or not. I'm assuming a lot of them are pretty vague, so it'll be fun to see what they actually can and can't do.
Also, curious if this will apply only to alphabet agencies created by executive order or all alphabet agencies?
Their vague and broad wording might finally come back to bite them where the sun dont shine
Time to hold the ATF and FBI accountable for Ruby Ridge, then.
EDIT: and Waco.
Makes sense. Good start though.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf
Is anyone paying attention to this?
It's a narrow decision. Nothing broad. It's alright, but not what people were hoping for.
Unfortunately i think youre right that its not as broad as we hoped, however i still think this sets a precedent for more lawsuits in the future. This ruling tells us that theyre overstepping power under the guise of "solving todays energy crisis". Theyre creating legislation based on what they personally think is best, not what congress has specifically authorized them to do. Sound familiar? Cause thats what they do all the time. Now theres precedent to bring it to court.
The atf is the agency that comes to mind in fact just replace epa with atf and energy crisis with gun crisis
Forgive me, I'm retarded. Does this mean that Biden can't shut down oil production?
No, that's still happening. That's related to the government's rights as a landowner.
Go after that next SC?
Too early to say - it hasn’t been out long enough for anyone to have read it, yet
I'd imagine his executive orders are unaffected.
Thank you mods for my first sticky!
o7
You da best!
Beat me by a few seconds. Aaaaand, let's read!
Breathe free air again........
Does this affect all agencies? Including the dreaded FEMA?
sets the precedent
I found this interesting:
I'm still amazed that people can claim that CO2 is a pollutant. I'm not a biologist but I'm pretty sure we'd die without C02 in the air as I think all the plants would die.
Gorsuch: “Under that doctrine’s terms, admin agencies must be able to point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ when they claim the power to make decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’”
Can we talk about potential ramifications please? Before celebrating need to understand if it can be torn apart based on some detail when trying to apply to other agencies - fbi, sec etc
If fed agencies are overstepping the specific power that was handed to them they can be sued. This is the precedent that was set
It seems this ruling alone didn't change a whole lot by itself, but it set a precedent for 3 letter agencies to be sued for overstepping their authority. So it seems to have opened the flood gates for future lawsuits and change.
It’s more about power. Think deepstate. As Gregg Phillips said...agencies like EPA are what built the deepstate. And entrenched them. Now we the people, can see. We can see whose allowing certain decisions to take place. Through Congress. And...if the good guys control Congress. Get ready for who knows what! Exciting times. What happen today is the deepstate being drag into the light. Exactly what we want.
It won't. Just more back and forth retardation.
Oh, gee. Now we will need desalination plants on all our lakes and rivers to deal with the reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee salt flow.
#nevertiredofwinning!
Proudly wearing my "The salt mines are rich today" t-shirt for the next 5 days straight.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Boooooom
Yuuuuuge
Pedes, Frens, Goats, Fellow Warriors!
If your flag isn't out flying yet, TIME to raise it at your home. Don't wait for the 4th - we are reclaiming our Independence!
CHARGE!
Was it 6-3 or did any of the lib judges join us?
6-3 (conservatives + Roberts)
If the vote without Robert's would be 4-4, I guarantee he would vote against it. He's a fucking slimy snake.
Preach!
Lib judges limit the reach of the feds?
Limit the reach of the deepstate is more accurate, IMO. Bringing them into the light.
Wait....IRS?
Please forgive me for being retarded, but does anyone know if this ruling will eventually affect emissions laws pertaining to diesel vehicles and the need to use DEF fluid? Ie: will we finally be able to take them into a dealership/shop to have this particularly stupid system disabled—legally? Because that would be awesome.
LETS GO
Follow live: https://www.scotusblog.com/
u/#happening
u/#pepeguitar
u/#lightning
Damn …..
The big question is what will this do to lower fuel prices? The oil companies have a lot of regulations in place. Will any be lessened or removed because of this?
Probably not affect prices because they'll just pocket that extra money. Nothing to see here!!!
Ahhh...simple economics. I really hope so. I like my SUV, but not the current price of gas.
I hope this effects the SEC at some point. IRS, too.
yesss! SEC!