 |
| credit: K. Siers, Charlotte Observer |
A trio of partisan, reactionary opinions handed down by the right-wing majority now at the Court is perhaps the culmination of an effort to build a bulwark against demographic and social changes in the USA. This decades long project underway since the so-called "Reagan Revolution", has created a third branch of government that is isolated, partisan, and out of touch with the opinions of a majority of citizens. It has been liberally funded by religious fundamentalists and right-wing corporate executives like the Koch Bros. Confronted by an erratic Democratic opposition, the effort was sure to succeed. Besides striking down reproductive freedom and further restricting gun control, Joe Biden and future Democratic presidents are now faced with a severe curtailment of the executive branch's ability to reduce carbon emissions. These decisions are a trifecta gift to conservatives who put them in a position of unassailable power on the Fourth of July.
Justice Roberts 6-3 majority opinion noted it was not making action on global warming unconstitutional, but that on policy questions of the magnitude of climate change, the executive will need the explicit authorization of Congress to move ahead. Of course given the brick wall of the filibuster rule in the Senate, his opinion amounts to the same result. The conservative justices found that EPA exceeded its authority in implementing Obama's Clean Power Plan, which did not go into effect before the Trump regime took power. Typically, the Maximum Liar proposed substitute regulations that were much more favorable to the power industry, but these also did not take effect since they were struck down by a DC federal court in January 2021. Eventhough West Virginia vs. EPA addresses the constitutionality of those defunct regulations, the opinion is broader in effect. Potentially, any regulatory scheme intended to deal comprehensively with climate change will run afoul of the Court's "major question doctrine" that will require explicit congressional authority. Justice Kagan wrote in her scathing dissent joined by the two remaining liberal justices that, "The Court appoints itself the decision maker on climate change." Democratic leaders have excoriated the decision, saying it is part of an attempt to push the country backward to a time when robber barons held sway over government.
For half a century the EPA has regulated stationary sources of pollution that endanger the public health or welfare under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Power Plan allowed an expansion of regulatory authority to off-site methods such as cap and trade to mitigate carbon emissions. The Court has shown considerable hostility towards administrative rule-making that is part of conservatives' bête noire, the administrative state, but conveniently exempts the Pentagon from their approbation. A Columbia University law professor wrote in Harvard Law Reviewthat the current battle over big government harkens back to the 1930s and the New Deal, when President Roosevelt used expansion of federal power to counteract the effects of the Great Depression. The activist Roberts Court is ready to end the era of expansive federal powers regardless of precedent*.
Action to reduce global warming is becoming more critical all the time. Capitalist skeptics have run out of credible objections, since the science community thinks the causes and effects of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is settled. Secretary General of the UN said that the goals of the Paris Climate Accord, which the USA rejoined after Trump left office--will be more difficult to achieve since the USA is a major contributor to the problem The current health secretary called the decision, "a public health disaster". US Person calls it: payback for polluters.
 |
| credit: J. Sorensen |