But that would be backwards and wrong (like a default-allow firewall rule).
No, they didn't. Congress delegating to the EPA (for instance) the power to regulate CFCs to save the ozone layer, does not also delegate the power to the EPA to regulate CO2 to solve global warming.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2013-title42/html...
> The Administrator shall periodically review the list established by this subsection and publish the results thereof and, where appropriate, revise such list by rule, adding pollutants which present, or may present, through inhalation or other routes of exposure, a threat of adverse human health effects (including, but not limited to, substances which are known to be, or may reasonably be anticipated to be, carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, which cause reproductive dysfunction, or which are acutely or chronically toxic) or adverse environmental effects whether through ambient concentrations, bioaccumulation, deposition, or otherwise, but not including releases subject to regulation under subsection (r) of this section as a result of emissions to the air.
>If you look at the conservative majority opinions, you’ll find that indeed, it’s about the relevant legal issues, ie. what the law actually says.
The dissertation focuses on that. The actual reasoning might be based on something else. The court is strongly interested in projecting an image of being neutral, and of only going off of the wording of laws, rather than involving their own biases. Thus, the majority opinion should be read as an attempt to assign such a motive to their decision, whereas the dissenting opinions attempt to assign the opposite motive. That is, they attempt to suggest that the majority ruled this way because they are insufficiently worried about climate change.