Another SCOTUS ruling to watch for

[Bmyers]

As everyone has been focused on the two big rulings last week (guns and abortions), SCOTUS has a few more rulings that could make big changes.

One that could affect many of us is the pending ruling on the EPA. The justices will decide a case concerning the EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants.

On the surface this doesn't sound all that interesting, but depending on how SCOTUS issues the ruling, it could change Departments abilities to create rules and regulations and severally limit Departments from making rules whiteout clear guidance from Congress.

So, this would impact EPA's ability to regulate pollution control and the potential to impact any government agency/department that wasn't given clear guidance from Congress on the issue the department/agency is trying to regulate.

The argument is that the departments/agencies are there to enforce Congress's decisions not to create their own rules.

Currently today is the last day for rulings to be released, but SCOTUS could extend their schedule.

Along with the above case, there are a case on religious freedom, immigration and veteran's rights that will be getting released.

 

[majorwager]

As everyone has been focused on the two big rulings last week (guns and abortions), SCOTUS has a few more rulings that could make big changes.

One that could affect many of us is the pending ruling on the EPA. The justices will decide a case concerning the EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants.

On the surface this doesn't sound all that interesting, but depending on how SCOTUS issues the ruling, it could change Departments abilities to create rules and regulations and severally limit Departments from making rules whiteout clear guidance from Congress.

So, this would impact EPA's ability to regulate pollution control and the potential to impact any government agency/department that wasn't given clear guidance from Congress on the issue the department/agency is trying to regulate.

The argument is that the departments/agencies are there to enforce Congress's decisions not to create their own rules.

Currently today is the last day for rulings to be released, but SCOTUS could extend their schedule.

Along with the above case, there are a case on religious freedom, immigration and veteran's rights that will be getting released.

Research Chevron Deference for background explanation.

 

[Bmyers]

Research Chevron Deference for background explanation.

Yes, there is an expectation that this ruling could overturn that 1980s decision. My limited understanding is the courts (SCOTUS) could be saying to Congress that it needs to do their job and not delegate, but write clear and understandable laws. Stop writing laws and then expecting the agencies to figure out what needs to be done.

How it will play out and the full impact will be interesting to see, because it goes beyond the EPA.

What is interesting to me is that SCOTUS would not be ruling that regulating pollutants is illegal, but just the process that the government is using is not legal. Congress could pass a law and do the same thing that they are trying to accomplish by having the department create its own rules.

Again, until the ruling is released, it is all a guess on my part.

 

[jyoutz]

Yes, there is an expectation that this ruling could overturn that 1980s decision. My limited understanding is the courts (SCOTUS) could be saying to Congress that it needs to do their job and not delegate, but write clear and understandable laws. Stop writing laws and then expecting the agencies to figure out what needs to be done.

How it will play out and the full impact will be interesting to see, because it goes beyond the EPA.

What is interesting to me is that SCOTUS would not be ruling that regulating pollutants is illegal, but just the process that the government is using is not legal. Congress could pass a law and do the same thing that they are trying to accomplish by having the department create its own rules.

Again, until the ruling is released, it is all a guess on my part.

The laws passed by congress are typically not specific, but the intent isn’t always vague. Read the two acts that most EPA regulations are based on: clean air and clean water acts. The intent is clear that assuring clean air and water is the direction of congress.

 

[Biker1mike]

Based on the recent ruling it is important for some to remember.
The Draft and right to declare war is a constitutional right for congress.
VA rights and benefits are NOT !

Roe/Wade decision has opened a whole new can of worms. Unintended consequences or a plan ?

 

[Bmyers]

Based on the recent ruling it is important for some to remember.
The Draft and right to declare war is a constitutional right for congress.
VA rights and benefits are NOT !

Roe/Wade decision has opened a whole new can of worms. Unintended consequences or a plan ?

The Veteran case I haven't read much on, I know it involves a State verses Federal law/regulation. Yet, that is all I know about that case.

I think you hit on a key part of all SCOTUS rulings, they have consequences and usually outside of just the initial scope.

 

[BruceP]

The intent is clear that assuring clean air and water is the direction of congress.

However, the very DEFINITION of "clean" has many viewpoints.

One viewpoint suggests that CARBON is a natural element and therefore not a pollutant. Heck, all life on Earth is carbon-based.... How is it possible that life itself is not "clean"? Essentually, all life on the planet which exhales Carbon could be 'regulated'.

Hence: That viewpoint contends that Carbon should not be regulated.

 

[Biker1mike]

However, the very DEFINITION of "clean" has many viewpoints.

Quick side note: When I was younger we analyzed for pollutants in parts per million and we thought that was pretty nifty. When I left we were down to low parts per trillion ! So yes, how clean is clean and how little of XXX does it take to kill you in the long term ?
The EPA has plenty of faults but they tend to take less political cash than a congressman to make a decision.

 

[Bmyers]

Just a side not, SCOTUS has released the ruling on religious freedom and sided with the coach and ruled against the school district.

High school football coach scores big win at Supreme Court over post-game prayer

The Supreme Court ruled that a school district violeted high school football coach Joe Kennedy's First Amendment rights by firing him for saying on-field prayers after games.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Bmyers]

SCOTUS just updated their calendar, Wednesday is now listed as a day to release more rulings.

 

[ACDII]

Apparently, many people in this country failed Constitution in 8th grade, or weren't properly taught Constitution. SCOTUS makes no laws. Roe V Wade was not a law, it was a ruling. SCOTUS determines the Constitutionality of laws.

The Constitution is pretty clear on most matters, especially the second amendment. 4 key words, just 4, Shall Not Be Infringed. Their NY ruling was spot on, NY was infringing on people rights to carry a firearm.

This country is a country of States. The states make their laws. RvW overruling put the power back to the people, back to the states where the Constitution spells it out. yet you have all these idiots protesting over their loss of a right that doesn't even exist.

Only Congress can make federal laws, branches of the Government outside of Congress can make no laws. The EPA, FAA, FCC etc. are making laws, and enforcing laws, that are unconstitutional. Some of what they create are based off laws Congress did make, while others have no backing by Congress. I hope SCOTUS rules correctly in this with the EPA, that is one agency that got too big for their boots.

 

[jyoutz]

Apparently, many people in this country failed Constitution in 8th grade, or weren't properly taught Constitution. SCOTUS makes no laws. Roe V Wade was not a law, it was a ruling. SCOTUS determines the Constitutionality of laws.

The Constitution is pretty clear on most matters, especially the second amendment. 4 key words, just 4, Shall Not Be Infringed. Their NY ruling was spot on, NY was infringing on people rights to carry a firearm.

This country is a country of States. The states make their laws. RvW overruling put the power back to the people, back to the states where the Constitution spells it out. yet you have all these idiots protesting over their loss of a right that doesn't even exist.

Only Congress can make federal laws, branches of the Government outside of Congress can make no laws. The EPA, FAA, FCC etc. are making laws, and enforcing laws, that are unconstitutional. Some of what they create are based off laws Congress did make, while others have no backing by Congress. I hope SCOTUS rules correctly in this with the EPA, that is one agency that got too big for their boots.

The federal rule making procedures for executive branch agencies are based on laws established by congress. If anyone believes that the agency’s process violates congressional direction, they can bring suit. These suits are seldom successful, indicating that the courts don’t agree that agencies are making laws outside of congressional direction. We are all entitled to our opinions but we will see how the courts decide.

 

[ACDII]

Back in 2012 Congress issued a FAA Modernization and reform act. The special part of the ruling was to leave Model Aviation alone. The FAA then came up with their own rules regarding "drones" and despite the Act, went over Congress and did their own rulings, AKA laws, regarding flying of UAS.

Congress told them to leave Model Aviation alone, FAA gave congress the finger and created their own laws on it. Are those laws Constitutional? Especially considering Congress told them not to?

Specifically put, Section 336 is very explicit as it “prohibits the FAA Administrator from promulgating rules or regulations on model aircraft flown strictly for hobby or recreational purposes and meeting certain other criteria."

The FAA took this and abused it by exempting remote that weigh less than 55 grams or somewhere in that weight. Pretty much a tiny foamy is the only thing exempted. They lumped all line of sight aircraft together with non line of sight, specifically non line of sight wingless multi rotor craft, and call them all drones. AMA is still fighting FAA to get this changed.

 

[skeets]

The argument is that the departments/agencies are there to enforce Congress's decisions not to create their own rules.
Maybe someone should tell the BATF&E

 

[lugbolt]

i would like to see them visit the fact that taxes are used to limit one's freedoms to own/purchase.

i'd also like to see citizens united revisited and possibly overturned

 

[Bmyers]

The argument is that the departments/agencies are there to enforce Congress's decisions not to create their own rules.
Maybe someone should tell the BATF&E

That is something that is being watched closely in this case. The impact is far reaching vs just the EPA. Depending on how SCOTUS rules and writes the opinion, it could overturn Chevron and change the way the departments/agencies perform their jobs.

If you remember the line item veto was ruled illegal because Congress is the only one allowed to create laws and by giving the President the line item veto the President could basically re-write the laws.

"Judge Thomas Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia combined the cases and declared the law unconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6–3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v."

I'm assuming we may see this case on Wednesday. What has me wondering is that SCOTUS saves the biggest cases for the end of the term. We have had, what most would consider three HUGE rulings, so will this ruling be another HUG ruling since it was saved to the end? Or is it simply that they were to busy with the other cases and this just falls when it does?