The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

The United States of America has become a "separate state"? |The Restlessness of the Supreme Court (4)

2022-07-06T13:17:31.586Z


On the last Friday before Independence Day, July 4, the Supreme Court, which is about to "summer vacation," handed down another seismic decision that drastically curtailed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) powers to regulate carbon emissions across the country


On the last Friday before Independence Day, July 4, the Supreme Court, which is about to "summer vacation," handed down another seismic decision that drastically curtailed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) powers to regulate carbon emissions across the country.

This move will not only affect the Biden administration's climate policy and the US's global commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but will also radiate to different levels of executive power.


In the first full trial period of the conservative Supreme Court with a ratio of 6 to 3, the justices have repealed the nearly half-century-old guarantee of abortion rights in the United States, ruled that New York State's nearly 110-year-old concealed gun control was unconstitutional, and Dismantle the separation of church and state in two cases involving schools.

And those results are just the first full year of a court expected to be dominated by conservatives for decades.

In West Virginia v. EPA, the justices took up a complaint about the Obama-era Clean Power Plan.

The move itself is a point of contention as the Clean Energy Plan has long since been ineffective.

Controversy over unclear authorization by Congress

Obama used the 1963 Clean Air Act to give the EPA the power to formulate a "best system of emission reduction" for buildings in an attempt to impose carbon dioxide emission reduction targets for power plants on states, and eventually appealed in many states It was stopped by the Supreme Court in 2016.

Last year, a lower court held that the Clean Air Act gave the EPA sufficient power to implement the Obama-era decree.

However, the Supreme Court rejected it at this moment, arguing that the clean energy plan was overstepping its authority, and disguised the "Chevron Deference" - that is, the court knew that it was not an expert in various professional departments, so Congress authorized the executive branch to law The interpretation of the ambiguous provisions in this article will follow the understanding of the federal department.

The Chevron Principles mean that the judges are not experts in environmental and climate policy, and since Congress authorized the EPA to establish optimal emission reduction regimes for buildings, and a power plant is clearly a building, judges should follow the EPA's response to the Clean Air Act. "Interpretation.

Demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court continued after abortion rights were overturned.

(AP)

In his majority opinion, however, conservative Chief Justice John Roberts applied what he called the "Major Questions Doctrine," arguing that if Congress were to have "significant economic and political influence" "In the decision to authorize the executive branch, it must clearly state the powers it intends to grant.

Therefore, he argues that "a cap on carbon dioxide emissions and forcing the nation to switch away from coal power generation may be a sensible solution to today's crisis," a power that can only be granted by Congress.

For this decision, opponents believe that the legislative intent of the Clean Air Act is to give EPA more space to make professional judgments and regulations.

After all, environmental protection and climate science are changing rapidly, and it is impossible to require hundreds of members of Congress, most of whom are not scientists, to reauthorize every time a scientific change occurs.

And the Supreme Court's "misjudgment" of the intent of congressional authorization is also the norm.

In the 1990s, Congress passed legislation at least 86 times to overturn the Supreme Court's interpretation of congressional legislation, according to a 2014 count.

The problem is that since 2010, Congress has been deeply divided between the two parties and has long been in a state of shutdown that cannot function.

The last time Congress vetoed the Supreme Court's interpretation dates back to 2009.

Judging from the existing judgments, the court's restrictions on the executive power of the White House are definitely not limited to the climate.

Previously, the court has ruled that the U.S. health department is not authorized to suspend landlords to evict renters on the grounds of anti-epidemic, and also ruled that the occupational safety department cannot require employers to vaccinate or test employees for occupational safety reasons.

The U.S. Supreme Court has far-reaching global influence on cultural issues.

Demonstrations also took place in Berlin against its overturning of the abortion-rights verdict.

(AP)

The federal government is on "autopilot"

Since Congress has failed to legislate on important policy issues for nearly a decade, and the power of the executive branch is expected to be significantly narrowed by the conservative Supreme Court, governance at the federal level in the United States may only follow the past in an "autopilot" manner. Regulations idling.

When federal action is restricted, state governments will act spontaneously according to their different political stances.

For example, on climate issues, states in the northeastern United States from Virginia to Maine formed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in 2009 to implement carbon dioxide emission caps for power plants in these states. .

Three West Coast states—California, Oregon, Washington—and Canada’s British Columbia have also formed the so-called Pacific Coast Collaborative to begin cooperating on clean energy standards.

Conservative states, by contrast, have moved toward greater fossil fuel extraction and less regulation.

The same has happened in states after abortion rights guarantees were removed.

Some liberal states have begun to write "abortion rights" into state constitutions, while conservative states are considering how to further tighten abortion regulations.

In terms of gun rights, California is also implementing gun control that is enforced by the people and likely violates the interpretation of the conservative Supreme Court.

Since the Supreme Court had previously refused to suspend the implementation of the Texas abortion restriction law, which was obviously unconstitutional at the time and was also enforced by the people themselves, due to the procedural issue of "unidentified defendant", if the court in turn stopped the California law on gun rights, California would have more Possibly regardless of the Supreme Court decision.

With liberal and conservative states moving further apart on fundamental issues, with Congress shut down and federal executive power increasingly limited by the courts, there are concerns that America will return to what it was before the Civil War. In general, it was divided because of some fundamental disagreement (slavery at the time).

These rifts, of course, did not originate from the Supreme Court.

But at the moment, the political advancement of the conservative justices has undoubtedly intensified and accelerated these divisions, and the "united states" that have been gradually integrated by the states of the United States for more than 200 years have begun to "disunited". states) backwards.

Is America Saying Goodbye to Separation of Church and State?

|The Restlessness of the Supreme Court (3) Misreading the Constitution with History: Has the American Gun Barrel Ended?

|The Restlessness of the Supreme Court (2) Will the death of abortion rights in the United States spark another wave of civil rights movements?

|The Restlessness of the Supreme Court (1)

Source: hk1

All news articles on 2022-07-06

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.