If you take an overly simplistic view of things then yes every ruling is partisan everywhere. This by itself is not a meaningful insight because all forms of government will be corrupt. The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution. I believe if we set aside climate change, for most reasonable people it’s not hard to see that the executive branch took action that the legislative branch never gave them, (and likely did so because they knew such laws could not pass Congress).
> If you take an overly simplistic view of things then yes every ruling is partisan everywhere
The courts are needed because interpretation of law is NOT cut and dry. But if interpretation is involved, it's going to be partisan. If it weren't partisan, these rulings by 6-3 majorities, formed by judges appointed by Republicans, wouldn't be so in line with Republican priorities.
It's not an "overly simplistic view."
> The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution
You make this sound like an objective function, which it is not. Judges can interpret the constitution differently, they can interpret written laws differently, and how the two relate can be subject to subjectivity as well.
I also question the premise. All government is beholden to the people, so while congress is supposed to pass laws that represent the will of the people, SCOTUS is ultimately supposed to interpret laws in a way that represents the will of the people as well -- THAT is its purpose. Roe's overturning is an example of that utterly failing.
>The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution
I claim they have never done this. That every ruling has had an eye towards the outcome, whether stated or unstated, and that when they claim to be acting as mechanistic evaluators they are attempting to hide their interest in the effect they're having.
Besides, its a terrible idea. The real effects of their rulings matter much more than the philosophy.
>The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say
This is actually a modern take that was essentially created by Justice Scalia. I like the take ("textualism") in many ways but, to be clear, the SCOTUS has no such mandate.
I dont think that is obvious at all, given the broad oversight over emissions given to the EPA.
Furthermore, I think looking at the recent decisions to uphold gerrymandered maps in Alabama and Louisiana should without a shadow of a doubt prove how partisan the court is.
And they can't claim to be "literalist" or "originalist" when deciding that border patrols duties are more important than the 4th ammendment
The legislative branch did give these agencies permission to take the actions they have, when those agencies were founded. The fact that SCOTUS disagrees doesn't make them right.
Also, outcomes matter. If before a ruling, a group of people had rights, and after a ruling those people have fewer rights, the cause of the loss of those rights is the ruling.
> The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution.
That's a farcical excuse to achieve the desired outcome. If the only "acceptable expert advice" is 200 years old, then they're just being obstinate.
> The purpose of SCOTUS isn’t to rule based on what the desired outcome is, it’s to rule based on what the law explicitly does say and is permitted to say per the Constitution.
Your positivist legal philosophy is not shared by the Roberts Court.
> it’s not hard to see that the executive branch took action that the legislative branch never gave them
The dissenting opinion explicitly argues that Congress did explicitly grant the Executive to explicitly regulate GHG emissions, both the manner and the amount.
"The limits the majority now puts on EPA’s authority fly in the face of the statute Congress wrote. The majority says it is simply “not plausible” that Congress enabled EPA to regulate power plants’ emissions through generation shifting. Ante, at 31. But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the “best system of emission reduction” for power plants. The “best system” full stop—no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind relevant here. The parties do not dispute that generation shifting is indeed the “best system” the most effective and efficient way to reduce power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. And no other provision in the Clean Air Act suggests that Congress meant to foreclose EPA from selecting that system; to the contrary, the Plan’s regulatory approach fits hand-in-glove with the rest of the statute. The majority’s decision rests on one claim alone: that generation shifting is just too new and too big a deal for Congress to have authorized it in Section 111’s general terms. But that is wrong. A key reason Congress makes broad delegations like Section 111 is so an agency can respond, appropriately and commensurately, to new and big problems. Congress knows what it doesn’t and can’t know when it drafts a statute; and Congress therefore gives an expert agency the power to address issues—even significant ones—as and when they arise. That is what Congress did in enacting Section 111. The majority today overrides that legislative choice. In so doing, it deprives EPA of the power needed—and the power granted—to curb the emission of greenhouse gases."
Despite my being very far to the “left” of the Biden Admin on environmental preservation, Kagan’s quoted dissent actually convinced me this was a sound legal ruling - even if I’m personally unhappy about the issue at hand.
The “best system of emission reduction” from Sec. 7411 is in regards to “standards of practices for new stationary sources” - the definition for a “stationary source” is a few paragraphs down and the broadest it gets is “facility/installation”.
Even if you buy the argument that the regulatory authority expands to the entire grid because the concept of a multi-sourced power grid didn’t exist in the 1970s (which doesn’t pass the smell test tbh), the rest of Sec. 111 makes it absolutely clear that “best system” was intended to be in reference to technological advances/upgrades that would make individual plants/buildings less pollutant.
Forcing a power generation shift from a coal plant to a hydro plant 40 miles away is definitely out of scope for what’s spelled out in the Act and Congress needs to get off their asses if they want the EPA to have that sort of power. And maybe toss in some funding for nuclear while they’re addressing this whole “best system” thing.
As Justice Kagan's dissent spells out, the Roberts Court majority abandoned its "textualist" principles, and invented this decision's "major questions doctrine" to reach the desired outcome.
For my part, I cannot fathom how or why any regulatory state would make a distinction between individual power generator and the overall grid. They're inseparable.
Further, under the (never implemented) plan, power shifting was incentivized, earning the generators more ROI. Basically a financial life line for utilities.
So why are they complaining?
The reason isn't financial or environmental. The ideological reason is the dismantling of the administrative state. By inserting itself into the policy review process, the Roberts Court introduces confusion and delay, ultimately yielding inaction.
