The Supreme Court on Friday killed off a judicial doctrine that has protected many federal regulations from legal challenges for decades — delivering a major victory for conservatives and business groups seeking to curb the power of the executive branch.
The 6-3 decision divided the court along ideological lines. Its fallout will make it harder for President Joe Biden or any future president to act on a vast array of policy areas, from wiping out student debt and expanding protections for pregnant workers to curbing climate pollution and regulating artificial intelligence.
Known as Chevron deference, the Reagan-era doctrine required judges to defer to agencies’ “reasonable” interpretations of “ambiguous” federal laws. Now, judges will be freer to impose their own readings of the law — giving them broad leeway to upend regulations on health care, the environment, financial regulations, technology and more.
This isn’t just about the EPA, this applies to other agencies as well. Including ones that charge individuals for offenses that were lawful prior to a reinterpretation made by unelected officials.
And it’s also about the EPA. And it’s about the most important issue in the world- climate change.
And now it’s in the hands of a bunch of people who don’t even believe it’s real and if they do, think the emissions should keep happening anyway because they don’t give a shit.
It’s an especially egregious ruling since SCOTUS gave companies the same rights as people.
Before any new administration can come in, appoint their hacks, and throw off long term climate plans. This also puts power into the legislature (and by that the people) allowing for the enactment of environmental laws that have firm regulations that won’t disappear in 4 years. Enabling us to meet long term goals and commitments.
There will be no long-term climate plans anymore, that’s the point. Judges will get rid of them all because the justice system is pro-corporate.
This can be circumnavigated by crafting legislation that leaves little for interpretation or judical review. Legislative definitions and unambiguous language have and will always act as handcuffs on the judiciary.
When has that ever stopped SCOTUS before?
One well know example was the flag burning case with Scalia.
SCOTUS is currently deciding whether or not the president can legally commit murder. That doesn’t even need special legislation. There isn’t even a question. And yet SCOTUS is looking into the question. And you want me to trust them with ecological disasters?