I do hope that states can work together to protect the environment but it does seem likely to become a partisan issue.
I do hope that states can work together to protect the environment but it does seem likely to become a partisan issue.
I’d go even further than that. Lots of migratory birds and animals use them.
It’s pretty amazing being around when the mega flocks of birds land.
Again, if Congress wanted to fix this, they have the authority. The decision simply said they have not yet actually done so.
a) Don't agree that congress is blocked and is never going to pass anything.
b) Care more about the legalities than the issues themselves, and so don't really care about whether there is a plausible way through congress.
c) Are making a cry for help for everyone to come together to fix congress. Hoping that if things get bad enough, people will finally wake up and get congress working again.
d) Trust that the supreme court will vote in their favour, and are just concern trolling / trying to distract their political opponents by referring to congress.
Let me know if I missed any other options.
Because it's what the current Court is saying. They're pushing back against Chevron's deference to agency rule making.
Congress didn't say a thing, agencies wrote a rule, the courts deferred; SCOTUS is saying that last part was incorrect, the agencies never had the power to write that rule. Congress needed to do it.
The only way to address the issue is to do so legally.
If we try to rely on the Supreme Court to fix things without fixing congress, the Supreme Court is going to become way more dysfunctional too.
e) stop complaining about the Supreme Court rulings going against their desire, and complain to Congress instead.
You have a subtext in all your options that gates all your options on what (a person thinks) should happen. For example "whether there is a plausible way through congress".
None of your options simply leave that concept entirely out. The reality of a law simply does not care on what you feel the law should be.
I see it all the time people complain "if you rule this way then xyz will happen", which is so completely irrelevant I don't see why they even mention it. A ruling is based on what IS passed not what output you want.
Legislature on the other hand is all about what SHOULD be the result.
e.) Want to limit the federal executive branch of government which some believe has grown too powerful.
What's really happening here is that a wall that took years/decades to build, that everyone thought was solid, was just torn down, and everyone is saying "the masons should have just built a better wall if they cared so much. They can do so now if they choose." while the territory that the wall was protecting is being invaded. See the problem?
Until someone checked and realized the wall was not where it claimed to be.
If the wetlands described don't fall under constitutional "Navigable Waterways" (via CWAs language "Waters of the US"), then congress does NOT have the constitutional authority to regulate it.
Meanwhile, Congress watches the Court strike down significant parts of things like the Voting Rights Act.
There’s little reason to believe the Court couldn’t possibly have struck down a “fix” on some other premise.
No? If SCOTUS says a law is unconstitutional, you’re either in amendment territory, or the complete collapse of the American system if Congress and the Executive ignore them.
If Congress wants, they can write legislation and then simultaneously exclude it from judicial review.