This is a great example of how on an individual level commentators want to bend democratic processes to achieve their own goals, but, without fail, they get caught in a tangle of contradictions. What is the Supreme Court's mandate? To stop climate change? To feel out the majority's opinion and make a legal path for it?
This is why democracy is so hard: it consistently yields outcomes that are disappointing to a large segment of the population. There is no "solution" to that problem, and shouldn't be. There are pathways to curbing carbon emissions, but the reality is that too few people, as a body, want to pay that price.
Democracy? Where did democracy ever enter into the picture here?
The Supreme Court is different from the other branch of government heads, in that they decide for themselves what their mandate is, and you don't have any recourse ... unless you're in charge of one of the other branches, and are willing to cause a constitutional crisis by ignoring them or replacing them.
> What is the Supreme Court's mandate? To stop climate change?
Stopping climate change should be everyone’s mandate. When your house is on fire and a neighbor has a hose pipe, so you get into an argument with them because they’re not a fireman?
No. No. Wrong. The Supreme Court's mandate is to be the Supreme Court, not to be the solve-the-current-crisis fixer. I want the planet not to fry and to still have a constitutional democracy at the end of that process.
The problem is that people want to handle this "on the cheap", by executive order, rather than by the actual existing mechanism, which is through Congress. Yes, Congress created the EPA. They didn't give them the authority to regulate CO2, though. That was an overreach when the executive order came out, and that reality finally caught up legally.
You want to regulate CO2? Then do it the right way - by having Congress pass a bill that grants that power to the EPA. That's the difference between rule of law and rule of the president.
You say those states have too much power? No they don't. There's only 18 of them. That's only 36 senators. They don't have a majority of the House, either. So go do it the way it should have been done from the beginning, instead of trying to get away with using a lazy back door.
[Edit: Reading other posts here, the issue may not have been CO2 emission, but rather management of the electrical grid. I still think that CO2 was a massive over-reach when the EPA started regulating that. It was almost certainly beyond the scope that Congress conceived of when they created the EPA.]
Stopping hackers should be everyone's mandate. When your network is under attack and the FBI have stingrays, do you get into an argument with them because they don't have warrants?
This is why democracy is so hard: it consistently yields outcomes that are disappointing to a large segment of the population. There is no "solution" to that problem, and shouldn't be. There are pathways to curbing carbon emissions, but the reality is that too few people, as a body, want to pay that price.