Politico is sounding the alarm over an upcoming Supreme Court ruling that could threaten everyday life as we know it:
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling this month hobbling the Biden administration’s efforts to rein in climate change — but its impact could weaken the executive branch's power to oversee wide swaths of American life https://t.co/7BKSkm8O4F
— POLITICO (@politico) June 12, 2022
The upcoming decision on the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate oversight offers the conservative justices an opportunity to undermine federal regulations on a host of issues, from drug pricing and financial regulations to net neutrality. Critics of the EPA have clamored for the high court to do just that, by declaring it unlawful for federal agencies to make “major” decisions without clear authorization from Congress.
The Supreme Court and several Republican-appointed judges have invoked the same principle repeatedly during the past year to strike down a series of Biden administration responses to the coronavirus pandemic. Liberal legal scholars worry that the EPA case could yield an aggressive version of that thinking — unraveling much of the regulatory state as it has existed since the New Deal.
That has implications for other major rules that President Joe Biden’s agencies are writing or defending in court, including wetlands protections, limits on car and truck pollution, insurance coverage for birth control under Obamacare, and even the Trump administration’s attempts to lower drug prices.
“A narrow reading of what the federal agencies can do is going to literally handcuff the federal government from taking action to protect Americans’ health safety and the environment,” said Lawrence Gostin, a public health law professor at Georgetown University.
“A narrow reading of what the federal agencies can do”? You mean, like, respecting the notion of separation of powers?
Is anyone else failing to see what the downside would be?
https://t.co/d13l9L1nAA pic.twitter.com/uUcKgFa8Vm
— Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) June 13, 2022
What Jeremy Clarkson said.
Hilarious how you report this as bad news. The regulatory state that you cute, having existed since the New Deal, is so blatantly unconstitutional it defies justification.
— jeffery reynolds – on Parler+Gab @RealJeffReynolds (@ChargerJeff) June 12, 2022
*cite. Twitter needs an edit button
— jeffery reynolds – on Parler+Gab @RealJeffReynolds (@ChargerJeff) June 12, 2022
We really are cool with the executive branch’s — and federal government’s — role in our everyday lives being reduced.
Good
— Barbarian Steve (@Redpot86) June 12, 2022
Sounds good.
— just alan (@JustJustalan) June 12, 2022
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
— MatthewOBrien (@ThatMattOBrien) June 12, 2022
Good. The executive branch needs to oversee significantly fewer and smaller swaths of American life.
— Gerry (@GerryDales) June 13, 2022
Anything that weakens the power of the president over “swaths of everyday life” is a win. https://t.co/iEBr2dsEwY
— Amy Curtis (@RantyAmyCurtis) June 13, 2022
And I would say that about any president, not just the current one.
— Theophilus (@Theophilus_TP) June 13, 2022
Absolutely. https://t.co/hHtBFqbw7E
— Amy Curtis (@RantyAmyCurtis) June 13, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member