Checks and balances redux
THE Conservative Six on the U.S. Supreme Court aren’t making many friends on the left these days.
With another 6-3 majority, the court ruled last week that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. That’s a job for Congress and the legislative process, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.
So, of course, in her dissenting opinion, Justice
Elena Kagan proclaimed,
“The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”
But wait. Didn’t the majority opinion just rule . . .
(You know, some of them thought the worst thing the court ever did was a few days back in the Dobbs abortion ruling. Note to the more liberal justices who write dissents: Not everything can be the worst thing ever.)
This ongoing game of chicken involving the government’s three branches is a sight to behold. Many presidents have resorted to bypassing the legislative branch when Congress proved an obstacle—that is, legislation through executive order.
As president, Barrack Obama perfected it. In 2011, speaking of “an increasingly dysfunctional Congress,” he said, “When they won’t act, I will.”
As Donald Trump did before him, Joe Biden keeps executive orders at the ready. Perhaps a sticky note-like pad of orders in his desk drawer? Of late, Congress indeed has been dysfunctional and not predisposed to compromise.
The checks and balances applied recently by SCOTUS are thus all the more necessary. The court is serving its intended function.
As Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch noted last week: “The Supreme Court didn’t remove abortion from ‘our democracy,’ it tossed it back to our democracy. In fact, when the court decided Roe, it removed abortion policy from the democratic process. This, by the way, was the heart of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s criticism of Roe. If Roe—or Dobbs—had banned abortion, a lot of abortion rights supporters would see this clearly.
“But because they won their preferred policy regime in Roe and lost their preferred policy regime in Dobbs, they mistakenly—or misleadingly— claim that this is a blow to democracy.”
The EPA should have such broad authority, you say? Access to abortion is an inherent right that should be protected at the federal level? Well, then, talk to your congressman. And good luck.