The front of Friday’s New York Times featured dismayed coverage of another conservative-pleasing ruling from the Supreme Court, this one reining in the Environmental Protection Agency. First up, legal reporter Charlie Savage’s “E.P.A. Ruling Is Milestone in Long Pushback to Regulation of Business.”
The Supreme Court ruling in the Environmental Protection Agency case on Thursday was a substantial victory for libertarian-minded conservatives who have worked for decades to curtail or dismantle modern-style government regulation of the economy.
A.P.A. has been struck down A court issued a decision to stop an E.P.A. whose implications go beyond hobbling the government’s ability to fight climate change. It might be more difficult to enforce other regulations.
Savage laid out the traditional liberal take on governmental regulatory agencies – they are vital to protect the public, and could never harm or act as a shield to preserve big businesses against competition by pushing regulations that smaller companies can’t afford to comply with.
This ruling expands the scope for attacking a government structure which in the 20th Century became America’s way of imposing rules on business. Congress has established agencies to ensure that water and air are clean and safe for people and animals.
These regulations can benefit all citizens, but they could also hurt corporations’ profits and cause other problems. Wealthy conservatives have funded a decades-long effort to weaken that system, commonly referred to by the administrative state.
Savage said that it was because of “the ideology of the contemporary Republican Party….it is unlikely that Congress will enact new laws expanding regulations.” His reasoning was sentimental.
It is possible that the Republican-appointed supermajority of the court could just be getting started with the assault on the administrative state in the next years Alarming are those who claim that the United States requires regulations in order to maintain a civilized society.
Then he quoted former Obama appointee Marietta Robinson: “If you don’t have regulations, then the only people who will benefit will be those who, with no rules, will make more money.”
Supreme Court beat reporter Adam Liptak also made his opinion clear in Friday’s front-page story, as “Supreme Court Limits E.P.A.’s Ability to Restrict Power Plant Emissions” was dominated by the losing argument from Justice Elena Kagan. Even though the Court voted 6-3 to limit the EPA’s to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, her rhetoric dominated the story at the expense of the actual majority decision.
In ruling against the E.P.A., the Supreme Court again waded into a politically divisive issue on the final day of a blockbuster term, adding to the conservative supermajority’s decisions to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion, vastly expand gun rights and further erode the wall separating church and state….
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority of the court, only vaguely mentioned the dangers posed by climate change. Justice Elena Kagan opened her dissent by describing the destruction the planet is facing, which included hurricanes and floods as well as coastal erosion, mass migration, political crises and mass migration.
You see a pattern?
In dissentJustice Kagan said that court substituted Congress’ policy judgment in its place.
….In dissent, Justice Kagan wrote that the statute at issue in the case had given the agency ample authority….She added that the agency was best suited to take on climate change.
Kagan kept going. There were 21 sentences that quoted Kagan, or summarized her thoughts, in total, as opposed to nine from Roberts who wrote the winning majority opinion and three from an concurring opinion.
About Post Author
