Congress might pass a law, for example, requiring the EPA to set pollution standards that are вЂњrequisite to protect human health,вЂќ or telling the Justice Department to regulate drugs to protect вЂњpublic safety.вЂќ ItвЂ™s unreasonable to expect Capitol Hill to have the time, or the expertise, to get into the nitty-gritty of every single government regulation. But the problem, according to Julian Mortensen and Nicholas Bagley, law professors at the University of Michigan, is that almost all government activity in the country relies on Congress handing off tasks to other branches. According to the doctrine, Congress shouldnвЂ™t let other branches of government do its work: That is, it shouldnвЂ™t delegate power elsewhere.

In all likelihood, that would take months of political wrangling, and would require Democrats to win back the Senate and either work around - or abolish - the filibuster.Д«ut even if Congress manages to pass such landmark legislation, there might be a problem. The other has much more potential but is exponentially more difficult: passing an actual climate bill through Congress. The first is through a presidentвЂ™s executive action, which President Barack Obama tried (and failed) to do in his second term. There are two major paths to cutting down the countryвЂ™s runaway carbon emissions. вЂњSo Congress couldnвЂ™t just say, вЂEPA, we want you to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent and you figure it out.вЂ™ They have to give a whole lot of specific details on how this would work.вЂќ вЂњThe idea is that Congress shouldnвЂ™t delegate too much power to the executive branch,вЂќ said Michael Gerrard, a professor of climate change law at Columbia University. ItвЂ™s how the new Supreme Court could be poised to strike down even the most bipartisan climate laws - thanks to a growing conservative movement to boost something known as the вЂњnondelegation doctrine.вЂќ But for those calling for action on global warming, the real concern about Barrett getting a seat on the highest court isnвЂ™t her willingness to toe the Republican party line on climate vagueness. In an exchange with Senator Kamala Harris of California, Barrett said that she didnвЂ™t want to weigh in on a вЂњ very contentious matter of public debate,вЂќ causing scientists everywhere to roll their eyes. Barrett refused to acknowledge the science of global warming during her hearings. When it comes to climate change, however, what Barrett didnвЂ™t say may prove just as important as what she did.

In todayвЂ™s world of highly partisan appointees to the Supreme Court, nominees have learned to keep their opinions buttoned-up: BarrettвЂ™s favorite phrase during the hearings was вЂњno hints, no previews, no forecasts.вЂќ

Before Judge Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the Senate on Monday, she had spent a month as a nominee saying basically nothing.

Amy barrett white pages michigan