They are limiting the ability of the government to make and enforce laws. The EPA is created with Congressional authority and is empowered to act on their behalf.
Castrating the federal government will have negative repercussions. If the federal government doesn't have the power to control the states, then why bother having one?
They do, they just need to make laws that EPA can enforce. Not let EPA to act on its own. Isn't everyone always talking about unelected burecrauts going against the will of the people?
Not everyone. The phrase "unelected bureaucrats" is almost exclusively a Republican talking point in US politics, used when they want deregulation of exactly this sort.
It's really not that at all. It's a very one-sided talking point, if you're hearing it a lot that simply demonstrates which media bubble you're in.
Search for the phrase "unelected judges": the results are all right-wing sources, literally starting with the Heritage foundation and Daniel Horowitz.
Over here in my media bubble I'm hearing a lot of complaints about judges who borderline perjured themselves in their confirmation hearings, "activist judges" (also a Republican talking point, now being used by Democrats to point out the hypocrisy of that talking point being used when the Heritage Foundation exists), "theocrats", and "destroying stare decisis".
"Unelected" doesn't enter into it, because of course judges shouldn't be elected, the whole point of the judicial system was supposed to be for them to be insulated from politics and focus on the law.
Yes, thank you for demonstrating precisely my point!
The results are r/shitliberalssay, r/conservative, multiple quotes from FOX News, r/roevwadecelebration, r/conservative, r/deplatformed_ (a pro-Trump QAnon crank) and Donald Trump himself.... One single story using the phrase in reference to the Dobbs decision was posted to a handful of leftwing subreddits seven months ago; otherwise it's almost exclusively right-wingers using the phrase.
When people complain about unelected bureaucrats, what they actually mean is that they are unhappy that the executive is doing its job, while the legislature, which has the power to change the direction of the executive, is choosing not to change that direction.
Its some weird Schroedinger's legislature, where it is legally empowered to direct the executive, it chooses not to, and somehow, that choice is the executive's fault, and we need an activist judge to rescue us from it. Instead, of the normal process of 'if the legislature is unhappy with the direction of the executive, it could just issue a course-correction by passing a law'.
The republicans know they can't pass that law right now, so they are using the courts to avoid having to pass it. Then they'll seize control of the legislature in the midterms, and they won't need to pass it. The beauty of having a stacked court, is that you can sit around and do nothing, and not have to write any unpopular legislature, while you sit around and lay all the blame for any consequences of bad governance on appointed-for-life judges.
>>They are limiting the ability of the government to make and enforce laws.
They are in fact doing the exact opposite - telling elected officials that you need to make and enforce laws - not give that responsibility to someone else.
Do you think the IRS should be able to set tax rates? then how is this different?
Congress passed a law to delegate their power and authority to the EPA.
If Congress made a law that the IRS should have the power to set tax rates, then I'd be fine with them being able to set tax rates. Because I think that Congress should have the power to delegate a portion of their power, should they choose to.
This is a weird, and frankly idiotic ruling. Regulations are too complicated and numerous for Congress to decide on every single one. Have you ever read one? They go into excruciating detail about everything because they are written by experts. The best case outcome from this is that the new rules from agencies get tossed into some existing process so that they are rubber stamped, thus adding red tape.
Castrating the federal government will have negative repercussions. If the federal government doesn't have the power to control the states, then why bother having one?