Ah yes, but that would require Congress to actually do something, which hasn't happened in the last 18 months so we shouldn't expect it to start.
Congress could have mooted this case with ordinary statutory procedures at any point, but did not.
Congress could have mooted this case with ordinary statutory procedures at any point, but did not.
So when you're talking about consensus, the country has it. There's consensus on immigration, gun control, and abortion. It's just that Republicans prevent us from acting on it.
A majority of Americans support the right to choose [1] (61%), a path to amnesty for undocumented persons [2] (60%), restrictions on firearm purchase and ownership [3] (> 64%), moving off of fossil fuels and treating climate change like the threat it is [4] (76%), a wealth tax on people with a net worth of over $50m [5] (56%), the expanded voting rights in HR 1 [6] (>61%), etc. etc. etc.
These are big majorities, and I'd wager most Americans don't think this stuff is broadly popular.
[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-i...
[2]: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-d4f4-dd7d-ab77-fcfd4...
[3]: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000178-cfbd-d112-a97e-ffbde...
[4]: https://morningconsult.com/2021/04/27/paris-agreement-climat...
[5]: https://www.businessinsider.com/over-half-americans-see-weal...
[6]: https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2021/4/dfp-vox-hr-...
I could, for example, define "sufficient consensus" as requiring that all laws require a 90% supermajority in the Senate. Or I could reduce this to 50% of the Senate. Alternatively I could reform Congress so that lawmaking requires voting totals representing 50% of the population.
Each of these is one possible version of "sufficient consensus", and still none of them actually matches the version we actually have. What is clear is that the sclerotic nature of today's Congress is problematic, and it's doing a great deal to undermine faith in our democratic system.
Consider, for example, how the FDA operates. They have a broad mandate to keep food clean and drugs safe. They don't have an explicit mandate of "you must only regulate tylenol and aspirin, we need to pass a law for new drugs each time they come up."
This ruling finds the EPA, who has the mandate to keep pollutants out of the air, can't determine that CO2 is a pollutant. Why is that? The 2016 clean air act specifically gave them the power to regulate air pollutants.
The only answer is political activism. There is no difference between the FDA's broad mandate and the EPA's broad mandate.
I recommend reading the dissent on this case. It makes it absolutely clear that this is an EPA power. The conservatives couldn't get new laws passed repealing the EPA, so instead they packed the court with political activists so they could make law from the bench.
HN is broken
Do you know how many school teachers in China must buy supplies for their students with their own money? Zero.
Do you know how many Chinese ambassadorships are left vacant because of political bickering? Zero.
I am not a shill for the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping, or the ideology of the Chinese political system, but I increasingly am a shill for the ruthless efficiency of the Chinese government.
China may well supersede the United States in the future, despite its treatment of minorities.
The US's genocidal oppression has been ongoing far, far longer than the oppression of the Uyghur people.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108717407/supreme-court-narr...
And knowing that, you'd take the guard rails off? Crazy.