Heroic ted cruz meme how to#
Heroic ted cruz meme install#

As I’ve previously noted, “An EPA that couldn’t rely on that leeway would need Congress to constantly pass new laws directing it how to proceed on every matter in its purview and then pass additional new laws covering the same ground as circumstances changed.” Traditionally, the Supreme Court has granted the executive branch agencies broad discretion to interpret laws, which allows them to be nimble as the times change but the laws don’t. What makes the “administrative state” work is the interplay between these branches.

Heroic ted cruz meme install#

Their end goal has long been apparent: They want to kneecap Congress and install themselves as an unelected superlegislature with veto power over the executive and legislative branches. And he’s not wrong- that is precisely how the court’s conservative bloc see it as well. In this case, I think the Texas senator’s complaints fairly neatly expose what’s at work: Cruz sees the high court’s conservative majority as a “victory” in an ongoing ideological project.

“I understand that Cruz disagrees with the underlying policy,” writes Benen, “but why take issue with a democratic governing process?” And as MSNBC’s Steve Benen notes, Cruz was being oddly salty about congressional lawmakers simply doing their job: using their majority to pass laws. It’s like saying that the umpires defeated the Houston Astros in the 2021 World Series. It’s rather unusual to characterize a Supreme Court decision as a “victory.” It’s a weird thing to say about an allegedly august institution that bills itself as a neutral caller of ball and strikes as it interprets the Founders’ intentions and sorts through a body of legal precedent.

But even if including this revised definition of carbon dioxide doesn’t overturn a Supreme Court decision, it might herald the overturning of a school of thought among liberals on how to confront the court, and signal that Democratic legislators intend to apply some more strategic thinking to the challenges posed by the court’s conservative majority.Ĭruz’s statement was a moment when the mask slipped. EPA still stands, and its larger implications should remain a cause for worry. The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v.

So the way the IRA defines carbon dioxide in this explicit fashion, in the Times ’ telling, is a defense against these judicial dark arts.īut as Aronoff explained, the mere existence of this language in the bill’s text doesn’t actually repeal anything. To that end, it has demonstrated a propensity for disallowing executive branch agencies from having the broadest possible latitude in interpreting the legislative branch’s instructions. EPA decision, at least according to the Times’ Lisa Friedman.Īs we’ve noted on these pages before, the high court’s conservative bloc has recently ramped up its war against the administrative state. Running through the legislative text is language that “define the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels as an ‘air pollutant.’” The detail may seem minor, but its inclusion could be a “game changer,” designed “specifically to address the Supreme Court’s justification for reining in the EPA” in last term’s West Virginia v. “Did the Inflation Reduction Act quietly save the administrative state?” That’s the big question that TNR’s Kate Aronoff took up this week after The New York Times and others reported on an eye-catching bit of fine print in the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA.