The court can't just overturn laws. Cases have to be brought to them first. So your argument of "why is X bad law allowed to stand when they just overturned Y?" doesn't hold water.
"""The Supreme Court decision ignored and damaged long-standing Constitutional principles designed to limit the power of the judiciary. Courts are not allowed to just issue pronouncements of what they think the law should be. They can only act to resolve a real controversy between adverse parties and enforce the will of Congress. Instead, the court changed a lawfully enacted statute without having any final or even proposed regulation before it. There is no “case or controversy” here, which for 200 years has been a rock-solid prerequisite for judicial action. Hence, the opinion violates the long-standing separation of powers principle, which until now, has restrained the judiciary from ideological adventuring."""
It appears the court has done exactly what you said they cannot. If you disagree then I would ask: What case was brought before the court before they made this ruling?
> What case was brought before the court before they made this ruling?
West Virginia vs. EPA was the case this ruling was made on. The article is whining because the regulation that West Virginia sued the EPA over was already pulled back, and somehow that means they can't be sued anymore? Completely disagree with that line of thinking.
