Its not so much they are doing this for profits; which of course they are, but society as a whole very much needs them to continue to do so in order to assure our continued existence in our current form.
None of these things are necessarily true. In fact from the government stability perspective we've been in an unparalleled period of peace and stability that looks incredibly shaky into the near future.
Any climate commitments go completely out the window when conflict breaks out between nations.
The argument wasn't that they're unconstitutional, it's that they weren't authorized by Congress. To have the law you have to actually pass the law.
But the argument was bullshit. Major Questions Doctrine just exists to say "nu uh, that authorization you have from Congress doesn't count" when it is politically expedient. The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it. Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but there is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress' delegation authority is limited only to uncontroversial things.
It wasn't that either. It was the courts saying that the law Congress passed didn't clearly authorize the EPA to do this, so if Congress wants it they need to say so unambiguously.
Notably this means that to change it doesn't require a constitutional amendment but only an ordinary law, which is not what is generally meant by "unconstitutional".
> The Clean Air Act exists. Congress passed it.
And then the courts interpret it and if Congress doesn't like their interpretation they can pass a new law which is more specific.
> Roberts just thinks that the law shouldn't be able to do anything controversial but there is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress' delegation authority is limited only to uncontroversial things.
There is absolutely nowhere in the Constitution that says that Congress even has delegation authority.
Yes, Congress can pass a new law. That doesn't make the supreme court's decision absolutely fucking rank idiocy based entirely in political goals covered in the thinnest veneer of jurisprudence.
Yes, Gorsuch thinks that Congress can't delegate at all and basically all execute agencies should be destroyed. We know. He'll ride out climate change in a mansion.
It kind of does. Your version would make any interpretation of the law a constitutional question. The plaintiff in a civil case claims they're entitled to damages but the court found their argument unconstitutional because it's Congress and not plaintiffs who make the law?
> That doesn't make the supreme court's decision absolutely fucking rank idiocy based entirely in political goals covered in the thinnest veneer of jurisprudence.
It feels pretty consistent with a "separation of powers" interpretation of how laws get made. Do you really think they come to a different result if it was Trump's EPA saying they had to replace renewables with "reliable" generation methods over whatever pretext? And wouldn't that be the result you want?
> Yes, Gorsuch thinks that Congress can't delegate at all and basically all execute agencies should be destroyed. We know. He'll ride out climate change in a mansion.
They could exist without making laws. Agency drafts a bill, proposes it to Congress, Congress votes on it. It's democratic.
It seems like people have forgotten how to compromise. You want a climate change bill, Republicans don't. Republicans want school vouchers, or to reduce the number of federal employees, or immigration reform, or lower taxes. You give them something they want, you get something you want.
I don't think that's true. Consider a case that is doing statutory interpretation to resolve a conflict between two federal laws. There is no question about the constitutional authority of Congress or any other body here.
> Do you really think they come to a different result if it was Trump's EPA saying they had to replace renewables with "reliable" generation methods over whatever pretext?
Yes. The Supreme Court is a political body, like any other. Notably, West Virginia v EPA took on a regulation that had already been reversed by the Trump administration.
> It seems like people have forgotten how to compromise. You want a climate change bill, Republicans don't.
And yet, the Clean Air Act exists. Congress could edit it or repeal it if they wanted.
There was no question about the constitutional authority of Congress in the other case. They were interpreting the Clean Air act and concluded it didn't enable the EPA to do this.
> Yes. The Supreme Court is a political body, like any other.
They generally try to avoid political issues and punt them to the elected branches.
> Notably, West Virginia v EPA took on a regulation that had already been reversed by the Trump administration.
'The case was not rendered moot when the Biden administration took over in 2020, as the EPA under the Biden administration stated their inclination to include "outside the fence line" controls, making the case still relevant to the authority the EPA had in interpreting their Congressional charter.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA)
> And yet, the Clean Air Act exists. Congress could edit it or repeal it if they wanted.
You keep saying "the Clean Air Act exists" but the question is what it authorizes the EPA to do.
They could pretty easily impose costs on fossil fuel generators that make them uncompetitive and thereby cause a switch to other generation methods, but that would raise energy costs for consumers in the meantime, which would be unpopular. So they wanted to do something else, but the something else wasn't a thing the law authorized the EPA to do, so if you want that you need to change the law.
> Its not so much they are doing this for profits
Funding a massive climate change denial movement in the US for decades, consequently eating up our limited window of time to make the kinds of societal changes to avoid the worst consequences of climate change is very much an "oil company issue" that is done exclusively for profit.