June 23, 2014

“BREAKING: Supreme Court limits EPA rules on greenhouse gas emissions”

…and as a result, will soon find out just how impotent it is, when it comes to trying to rein in the Skynet that is leftist bureaucratic rule.  Washington Examiner:

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled to place limits on the Obama administration’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from factories and power plants. But the Environmental Protection Agency likely has other tools that can be used to get around the 5-4 decision.

Yes. For instance, like lawlessness, a President who condones and even engages in lawlessness, and an AG whose objective it appears is to shield the lawless by using law the way it sees fit.

The states are going to have to assert 10th Amendment rights and simply dare armed bureaucratic agents to come in and close down industry.

Oh, and lest we forget, I’d like to point out yet again that the most troubling part of this ruling is not the outcome, but rather that everyone knew going in at least 4 Justices would act as rubber stamps for Obama’s clearly unconstitutional agenda.  That they weren’t able to gather that lone swing vote on this issue means they’ll pull back some of their praise for Kennedy, or Roberts, etc. — with the hope that next time they “don what’s right for their legacies.”

Our courts are as fucked as the rest of our government.  The whole thing is dysfunctional.  And one of the reasons is that there is no consistent set of rules for determining what counts as interpreting the law, then applying it.  From my perspective — and it is the only coherent one — originalism must be adopted as the singular hermeneutic strategy, because it is the only strategy that, when used within the conventions of legal interpretation (which requires commonly understood contemporaneous diction, clarity, etc.), from a structural perspective, remains true to the process of legislation and to the separation of powers:  that is, if we don’t appeal, when “interpreting,” to what the lawmakers meant, we aren’t really allowing the legislature to write the laws. Rather, we are allowing a judicial majority to re-write them as they please.

This doesn’t mean that every intention of a legislature will be signaled well; bad laws can be written and voted on.  But legislative history should be able to show justices that though the intent wasn’t signaled properly, it nevertheless was the intent, and they can then throw the statutes back to the legislature and have it clean up language that, as a matter of the demands of legal conventions, is causing confusion.

Such a structural imperative is a way to fix the court system and make rogue interpretive maneuvers more difficult to justify.  Couple this to term limits — to avoid the Beltway  drift leftward of so many insulated public servants — and there is hope for the legal system.

But make no mistake:  what comes to count as legitimate interpretation is of paramount importance to the functioning of a tripartite government with enumerated powers and checks and balances to confound the impulse to over legislate.  In the legal speech act, if we are not privileging the intent of the lawmakers / ratifiers, we aren’t performing the task of creating and instituting legislation in a way that is consonant with our way of government.

And from that failing, chaos and tyranny ensue.

 

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:05am
18 comments | Trackback

Comments (18)

  1. I think you are absolutely correct.

    My despair comes from not seeing how to put this in a compelling tweet – anything longer gets filtered out of public discourse, these days…

  2. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said “EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case.” Scalia said the agency wanted to regulate 86% of all greenhouse gases emitted from plants nationwide. The agency will be able to regulate 83% of the emissions under the ruling, Scalia said.

    that’s from the ap article i read this morning

  3. Perhaps we should think about a name-change and go from speaking of a “Supreme” Court to the more truthful “Sovereign” Court, eh? I mean, if we have any remaining interest in truthfulness after having abandoned those interests generally.

  4. Our courts are as fucked as the rest of our government.

    I will repeat (in part) something I posted in a different thread yesterday:

    “Before a revolution can take place, the population must lose faith in both the police and the courts.” — R.A. Heinlein

    I’d say we’re almost there…

    Another quote to ponder:

    “The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” — Justice Alex Kozinski, Ninth Circuit Court, in his dissent to Silveira v. Lockyer

  5. The Hill: Supreme Court largely upholds EPA’s greenhouse gas powers

    *** EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said the court’s ruling, “largely upheld” the agency’s approach.

    “The Supreme Court’s decision is a win for our efforts to reduce carbon pollution because it allows EPA, states and other permitting authorities to continue to require carbon pollution limits in permits for the largest pollution sources,” she said. ***

    Ring ring . . . ring ring . . .

    “Supreme Court, how can we help you?”

    “This is Heywood Jablowme at the EPA. How’s your morning going, ’cause ours is going great?!”

  6. So the EPA still gets to pretend and enforce the notion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant? What’s on tap for the next act in this farce?

  7. Steve Hayward has a partial write-up at Powerline, titled “EPA gets smacked around by SCOTUS”.

  8. What’s on tap for the next act in this farce?

    A ruling that by the time you are 35, you’ve exhaled enough pollution and can now be “recycled” against your will – unless, of course, you are a useful tool of the government.

  9. “Supreme Court limits IRS taxing authority: can only collect one pound of flesh per taxpayer per year, unless they really really really want more.”

  10. The states are going to have to assert 10th Amendment rights and simply dare armed bureaucratic agents to come in and close down industry.

    That, I think will be the real test – until such a thing happens, Dear Leader’s cult just rolls on.

  11. A ruling that by the time you are 35,

    Wow. Inflation even affects Logan’s Run.

  12. Di, I think in the book it was when you reached the last day of being 21 years old you went to a sleep shop to be euthanized by a gas that causes euphoria. And the legendary Sanctuary actually existed. It was a dirty rickety derelict space station near mars that barely worked full of miserable and hungry but free old people.

    The jewel in the hand thing changed every seven years from yellow to blue to red. At the end of year 21 it went flashes red for one day and then goes dead.

    In the book there is no computer that changes his crystal. Rather Logan 3 runs on his REAL last day because he hates the runners so much that he intends to find their underground railroad and betray it to his fellow sandmen. He’s a bastard.

    His “friend” Francis who pursues him in the series turns out to be the infamous rebel Ballard. he found a way to break his crystal and is 42 and has his face modified to hide his true age. He convinces Logan that the computers that run earth are breaking down and that soon there will be mass human deaths on Earth. The ship that takes them to Sanctuary will one day bring them back to earth to reclaim and reorganize the world which will probably be full of the feral “cubs” gangs who are the only people who will know how to survive without the infrastructure.

  13. So, Logan’s Run is a case that the movie was better than the book.

    That isn’t saying much, of course.

  14. Used to seem as though saying “Jenny Agutter” was all it took where that was concerned, pretty much [un]covered the necessary bases (or base motivations).

  15. I will not dispute that, and I was just the right age to appreciate them… I mean her.

  16. Well, I am still the right age, but you know what I mean.

  17. Well, I am still the right age, but you know what I mean.

    To be sure, I snatch up your meaning instantly, without Nicholas Roeg intervening in the least.

Leave a Reply