This is a YUUUUGE win!
The court’s decision in the West Virginia v. EPA case decided that the EPA doesn’t have the power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal members dissenting.
Chief Justice John Roberts, said that Congress had not explicitly given the EPA the authority to regulate emissions.
Excerpt from Justice Roberts:
But the only interpretive question before us, and the only one we answer, is more narrow: whether the “best system of emission reduction” identified by EPA in the Clean Power Plan was within the authority granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For the reasons given, the answer is no.
Here’s the final paragraph of the Opinion of the Court:
Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Some uncommon good sense at a time when it is severely needed. Truth floats, lies and deceit can only tread water so long.
Not for progressivist Justices, evidently.
The ONLY thing they think about is control. Thank heaven for Donald Trump’s time in office.
If Hilbillary had won, it would be 6-3 for the government over the people and states, and an activist 6 to 3, and with wishy washy Roberts is would often be 7 to 2.
and you would not be reading this blog as the Disinformation Governance Board would have shut it down years ago
I know it’s not popular in conservative circles, but thank God for Mitch McConnell. I thought he was making a huge mistake by not acting on Garland.
No, I feel the same way about McConnell on this issue. I didn’t think he was making a huge mistake but I did wonder about it. As we have seen Garland in action as AG, thank God he’s not on SCOTUS! He has abridged American’s Constitutional Rights with such abandon that I think he would fit right in as a second-hand man to any dictator. He certainly has shown zero respect for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It is frightening.
Nothing to do with truth, lies, deceit or science. This is about regulatory overreach.
You’re both right. 🙂
When is a substance a pollutant and when is it an essential substance for a healthy environment? A large number of substances are essential for healthy environment within a certain range and it is deadly or dangerous outside this range. Take iron, vitamin A, PM2.5, E Coli and probiotics –the list could on an on. This is the reason science, extensive and intensive statistical analysis is needed in order to determine the beneficial range. One of the first thing congress should legislate is to reduce if not to eliminate the outputs of computer modeling in decision making. They have to realize computer models are just models with outputs dependent on assumptions plus (some?–optional) real world data. Garbage in–garbage out may be the rule. However, corrupt research institutions, media looking for headlines and naive, narrow minded,fanatical and ignorant politicians and masses looks at the garbage computer output as the real thing. This is the sad thing with carbon dioxide.
The debate has become political, emotional and devoid of sanity. Educating the public on the nature of science and its role in decision making is also important. Most NGOs and proponents of AGW takes carbon dioxide as a pure black and white issue. As part of an official duty, I once face this crowd. As I explain the role of carbon dioxide in the environment, —the only thing they were waiting was one word—Good or Bad. Forget about the intricacies of science. Just one word–is it bad or good.
Looking at the unintended consequences of any policy one vital question to ask–Will the supreme court decision not further politicize the issue? The AG and politicians in some states have demonstrated further politicization rather than the dominance of science, logic, statistical methods in their decision making.
“Looking at the unintended consequences of any policy one vital question to ask–Will the supreme court decision not further politicize the issue?”
Your comment strikes me as funny, eo. In this day and age, everything is political. It’s difficult to believe even SCOTUS could make anything more political than it already is.
Besides, that’s not their job, thank God. Their job is to decide if something is Constitutional or, not. They did their job. We can all be grateful for that whether you realize it or not.
“Educating the public on the nature of science and its role in decision making is also important.”
I think it’s futile for the most part. It has become quite clear that a very large segment of the public is not interested in facts at all.
The regulatory overreach was based on lies about climate change, CO2 and scientific evidence, further fanned by the myth of a climate emergency. The Supreme Court ignored the emotional appeal and looked to the constitution and its literal interpretation – the truth about what it’s intended meaning was. So yes truth, lies, deceit and science are involved. The lies and deceit were used to justify regulatory overreach and the truth of the constitution used to correct the error.
Criminal malfeasance when dealing with activist actions in a regulatory body.
Anthony, you might want to reconsider that headline. It was a good decision, but the Court didn’t say that EPA couldn’t regulate carbon dioxide. It said that they couldn’t regulate carbon dioxide by restructuring the electricity generating system in America.
Salute!
Correct, Dave.
Poor headline, but wish it were true.
Until SCOTUE reverses the ruling concerning carbon dioxide as a “pollutant”, the battle will continue.
Gums sends…
But it gives solid ground to make the claim that any regulation based on reducing CO2 is not valid. We just need people to bring the actions.
Correct, Dave, but here’s the punchline: Alexandria Occasional Cortex (AOC) is extremely upset at the ruling. Has to be a good thing.
Yes, she’s so upset that I’m pretty sure she’s, again, predicting the End of The World.
I just checked. Yep, that’s about what she is predicting.
AOC calls Supreme Court EPA ruling on power plant emissions ‘catastrophic’
https://fxn.ws/3yyl0p1
A filibuster carveout is not enough,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “We need to reform or do away with the whole thing, for the sake of the planet.”
Not sure what she means by “the whole thing…” She wants to do away with the Filibuster but it sounds like what she really means is do away with our Republic and entire system of Government. Maybe it’s the Latinx in her? Dictators are in her genes, perhaps. God knows, South America has and always has had plenty of those.
I don’t get it, SCOTUS says Congress can pass just about whatever regulation she wants. She is in Congress. She just needs to get to work if she feels that strongly about it.
in 2014 they said CO2 wasn’t a pollutant … i.e. not regulatable as a pollutant … the EPA tried an end around and thats what the court just shut down …
But in order for the EPA to regulate it, they are going to need a law passed by Congress. No more presidential edicts. These will get tied up in the courts. A new law regulating CO2 will never get through the Senate, and they lose control of the House in November.
Three of those SCOTUS votes are due to the tireless efforts of Trump, etc.
More such votes will be coming.
Enjoy the ride.
BTW, the US subscribing to the Paris Accords is illegal, because it was never ratified by the U.S. Congress.
Nobody subscribes to the Paris accords. Tell me what and when? They – whatever they are and let me know – are non-binding. Glad for the American taxpayer that Trump pulled out, sadly Obama wasted half a billion.
You mean Obama stole half a billion to give to the “green” slush fund in contravention of U.S. law, since he had no authority to do that. Kind of like the billions he gave Iran attempting to buy them off, when all it did was fund terrorism. Should have been impeached and removed from office for these crimes.
Even sadder, Biden put us back in to the Paris Accord. Thankfully, it still has never been ratified by the US Senate and won’t be any time soon the way it looks.
you mean the U.S. Senate. They ratify treaties; the House does not.
One was solely due to Mitch McConnell, he stood in the breech and said to Merrick Garland “Thou shall not pass.”
Admittedly neither are that imposing physically, but the actual opponent was Obama, and Mitch was the better man at least in that contest.
Great news and hopefully, the first of many victories! Unfortunately, there is still nobody able or willing to say “carbon dioxide does not need reducing”…..
Will Happer just made a great presentation in the Netherlands on that very topic.
CLINTEL lecture William Happer in Amsterdam
19,432 views Dec 3, 2021 William Happer, well-known climate optimist, founder of the CO2 Coalition visited The Netherlands. On 15 November he gave a public talk in Amsterdam. This version has Dutch subtitles.
If you enjoy the video and our work please consider to become Friend of CLINTEL or make a donation. See http://www.clintel.org
https://youtu.be/PblYr-KjOVY
The amazing Will Happer – he conceived the sodium atom laser guide star for atmospheric correction back in the early 80’s.
Does anyone know if the Plank–Schwarzschild graph in Happer’s presentation is availble anywhere?? Thanks.
Transcript of a Happer lecture similar to clintel is
https://rclutz.com/2021/12/04/climate-change-and-co2-not-a-problem/
Thanks Ron! I’m much obliged.
It is here, for one of many places, I am sure.
https://sealevel.info/Earths_radiative_emissions_0_400_800_ppmv_v2_anno
Happer commented at CO2 coalition on SCOTUS EPA ruling:
“The decision is a very welcome reaffirmation of the Constitutional rights of citizens of the United States. Untouched is the question of whether the Constitution allows Congress to make scientifically incorrect decisions by majority vote, for example: that carbon dioxide, a beneficial gas that is essential to life on Earth, is a pollutant.”
My post with scotusblog report is EPA Loses–America Wins
https://rclutz.com/2022/06/30/huge-supreme-court-curtails-epas-authority-to-fight-climate-change/
Thank you, Ron. That is an excellent explanation of the legal/Constitutional issues involved. I enjoyed and learned from your post.
Good news indeed. Next, do the endangerment ruling. Can’t wait to see Rud Istvan’s and Francis Menton’s take on today’s ruling. Seems like a major chink in EPA’s and other regulator’s armor.
The next target should be the equitoxicity rule, by which the EPa says that there is no information available on the toxicity of individual species of airborne particles therefore they are assumed to be equally toxic.
Another target is the “linear no limit” concept meaning that if something is know to be toxic/harmful at a given concentration or exposure, there is an automatic assumption that at ALL concentrations and exposures, there is harm, even at one part per trillion.
These two “rules” are behind much of the anti-science that oozes through the halls of the EPA. One of the most important consequences of tossing the latter rule is the effect of low levels of ionizing radiation which have been shown repeatedly to confer health benefits. Similar exposures are probably going to be shown for pets, farm animals, “dirt” and a host of environmental agents. Children exposed to farm animals have far lower risk of asthma, for example.
To achieve these advances the courts should demand that the EPA justify their “rules” and not say, “We can do what we want”.
The EPA has public hearings or periods for public comment.
However, the EPA just ignores the input and does what they want to do anyway.
the EPa says that there is no information available on the toxicity of individual species of airborne particles
This usually means that there is no information that supports the position the EPA management has taken. Much like the rest of the AGW industry, information that doesn’t support the agenda is by definition is not data, it’s just denier talking points.
Mark, and the scientists who don’t support the Believers opinions on AGW aren’t “real scientists” or, they’ve been bought off by the fossil fuel industry or, fill in the blank. If not that, they once gave a talk to a group who once took a donation from an oil company.
And if all that fails, they fall back on tossing around accusations of various -ists and -isms.
“Unfortunately, there is still nobody able or willing to say ‘carbon dioxide does not need reducing.'”
Have faith in the truth Richard. It is coming. Web sites like WUWT deserve a lot of praise for helping to spread the truth. In time as more people realize that nothing is changing in the climate this phony global warming issue will gradually fade away. I just wish that the evil and the misguided people who have perpetrated this junk science could be punished for all the damage they have done.
It fades in importance now that we have a pandemic to exert our desired controls.
But, they do. Richard! See Critical Comments by Happer and Lindzen on SEC Rule – Watts Up With That?
“ Unfortunately, there is still nobody able or willing to say “carbon dioxide does not need reducing”…..”
Well, I’ll say it if no one else will-
Carbon dioxide does not need reducing.
(but PLEASE don’t think for one second that I am skeptical of the phenomenon called ‘climate’, or include me in this (to me) weird “climate skeptic” cult I keep seeing people around here refer to themselves as members of, because I said that. I’m totally convinced that climate is real, as in there really are recurring seasons, wherein weather patterns shift in a predictable way, as the Earth proceeds through a yearly orbiting of the Sun . . ; )
Well, I have more than thirty adult years, so I can claim to have experienced “climate”. In my opinion, it’s doing OK.
I wish somebody more influential than me would say that. But I contribute in my small way, on Face Book and letters to the newspapers, saying that we need MORE carbon dioxide, not less. So far, nobody has tried to contradict me, which suggests that the Greenies know the facts on this subject. Come on folks, get with it and do it at EVERY opportunity – that’s what the Greenies’ lies have done with considerable success over several decades!
Make sure you carry a bottle of glue solvent on your morning commute.😁
Nail polish remover should work, as it is usually acetone, which works on superglue
Alternatively, adopt the French Police’s approach. A sharp tug, followed by protester screaming. 👍
That is my preferred approach. The screams were most satisfying.
Yeah, that looks handy!
Is it solar powered too?
Use that saw and let them sue. They won’t have a leg to stand on.
😉
It looked like a Playhouse 90 event.
and a bag of manure from the farm or garden center
If you know a farmer, it’d be best to drive to work in a muckspreader – you could get the entire protest that way. They really, really don’t like that response!
Friend told me he was driving down some rural road, I think in Connecticut, caught up to a tractor pulling a manure spreader, and behind that a jerk in a convertible, honking, yelling, weaving back and forth. Don’t know how he expected that would suddenly make it possible for the tractor to pull over.
I think you can guess what the tractor driver did. My friend said it was most satisfying.
My first car our of Purdue U was a slaghtly used IH TravelAll.
It was a station wagon body on a truck frame. They were truely utilty vechicles. I could put 4×8 sheets of plywood in back with seats down.
Great for pull trailers in the snow.
I’ve owned two. Both finally rusted out too badly to drive. Best vehicles I ever owned!
Depending on where you lived, everything rusted out. Had IH pickups too.
The IH TA was the family station wagon when it was not doing heavy duty work. Besides the family, I once added 13 guys from my division in the navy for a ride back to base.
As far as reliablity went, I bought a rice burner beater for driving to the shipyard. It was more relaible.
This is the machine for those really big crowds:
Good point. I hear it also works as a lip balm for chapped lips. It does nothing to mitigate the chapping of the lips, but it stops the individual from LICKING them.
Use the fresh stuff right off the pasture, the in store variety has been composted, so has lost most of its allure!
Super-soaker full of cow urine and blue dye !
Or you could just use the French solution.
I too prefer the French solution, although if I was the officer I would of waited until he had soiled his pants then given onlookers time to point and laugh and then painfully peeled him off the road.
Would a snow shovel work?
A plow would be better
AND it would reduce the down time PLUS only require one pass, thus saving fuel and reducing overall “emissions.”
Now you’re being ridiculous. I recommend amputation.
French Police have a better approach that discourages similar, future activities.
I reckon a packet of Kool-Aide neutralizer lozenges is very helpful.
(not yet approved by the FDA, and probably never will be)
Oh, just pull their glued hands off the pavement. They’ll never forget it. They’ll really have skin in the game then. Also, gives the ants something to eat.
Or not.
But the only question before the Court
is more narrow: whether the “best system of emission reduction” iden-
tified by EPA in the Clean Powe r Plan was within the authority
granted to the Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. For the
reasons given, the answer is no.
There had been some rumblings that the SCOTUS might overturn the entire administrative state, but it didn’t.
Take a look at Gorsuch’s concurring opinion. I think that may be coming. If Roberts has his way it will be a slice at a time.
Just thinking now…
The Supreme Court has been moving more and more towards originalism, and has required a historical reading for things like the 2nd amendment. A historical reading of the commerce clause would be far more sweeping of a change than simply overturning Chevron. It would mean the the Federal Government is restricted to meddling in commerce except in instances where the good/service crosses state lines.
I suspect that is coming in the next year or two.
This decision is not rooted in the Constitution, other than the requirement that the President must faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress and signed into being by a President. This decision simply determined, logically, that Congress never enacted a law identifying carbon dioxide as an air pollutant and authorizing the President, via the EPA, to regulate CO2.
Salute!
My understanding is that EPA determined CO2 regulation was under its purview after the terrible ruling back in the Bush administration when several states sued the Government.
From then on it was “Katie, bar the door” for the greenies.
Gums sends…
This decision was firmly rooted in the Constitution:
The 5th Amendment codifies the common law right to not be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V.
Due process is violated by “a purely arbitrary or capricious exercise of [State] power [where private] property rights [are injured] [] and the owner [is denied] all real remedy… .” Truax v. Corrigan No 13, 257 U.S. 312, 329-30 (1921).
“The due process clause requires that every[one] shall have the protection … of the general law — a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds not arbitrarily or capriciously, but upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial, so that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 535 [1884].” Truax at 332.
************
CAA (Clean Air Act) – Standard of Review
“(9) In the case of review of any action of the Administrator to which this subsection applies, the court may reverse any such action found to be-
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; … .”
“Clean Air Act,”42 USC 85 §7607(d)(9).
(above from my administrative law memorandum about EPA’s ultra vires action vis a vis the “endangerment” finding and the Clean Air Act)
The Constitution only provides for THREE branches of government. The Bureaucratic Hegemony of un-elected government workers is *NOT* authorized in the Constitution and, therefore, can *not* make laws. Only Congress can pass legislation and the Executive concur. The EPA in this case was trying to make law – and SCOUTS called them out on it.
Why are you telling me this, Mr. Gorman? What in my comment made you think I did not know this high school-level information?
Duane was mistaken. The holding in West Virginia v. EPA is soundly grounded on Constitutional law and principles such as Separation of Powers.
No not mistaken. The decision was based exactly and only upon what the majority stated it was based upon, and that basis was stated by the Chief Justice as solely that Congress did not authorize EPA to regulate carbon. There was no Constitutional interpretation involved – just a straight up violation of Articles I and II. Art. I says Congress enacts the laws, and Art. says the President and his/her administration are charged with faithfully executing the laws that Congress enacts.
You forgot, apparently, what you wrote. The decision IS (contrary to what you wrote) based entirely on law and jurisprudence firmly rooted in the Constitution.
What did you think I meant by ultra vires??
Doesn’t matter. The court said the EPA “simply” did not follow the law.
lol
Except that the decision was simply, as the Chief Justice said in his majority opinion, none of those things. He literally wrote that the basis of the majority opinion was solely that the EPA can only regulate what Congress explicitly authorizes EPA to regulate.
The decisions of the Supreme Court are always based upon whatever the majority says they are based upon.
Well, guess where Justice Roberts found the law that told him all of that?
From Gorsuch’s final paragraph: But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives.
Maybe meaning, that the states now can legislate independently to force off the EPA, without contradicting or conflicting a SCOTUS decision.
When states can now freely and independently decide to whether waste tax payers funds or not in chasing unicorns.
As it should be constitutionally.
cheers
Regardless of the legal arguments give Kagan credit, at least she wrote the dissent, but it sounds like a power play degrading the court. Her final statement–“ And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent”
Early on she concluded that the science is settled, IPCC said so.
How did she get to a position on The Court with such faulty reasoning?
“<i> The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy.</i>”
The decision doesn’t make “climate policy.”
It says <b>elected people</b> should be making climate (and other) policies.
Maybe before this gets sorted out, more elected people will learn there is no need for an energy transition, there is no climate emergency, and there will be a popcorn shortage as exciting events happen so rapidly.
The left requires obedience, not intelligence in it’s appointees.
You first point is key.
The Court DID NOT appoint itself as “decision maker”; it sent it back to the legislative bodies (and the people).
The three dissenting Leftist Justices clearly wanted to impose their own policy preferences. The language of the dissent says it all.
Agree with your observation. Still,
I cannot think of many things more frightening.
shows remarkable lack of imagination.
Kagan’s decent reads like it was ghost written by the EPA with some help from the IPCC. Their argument is entirely based on supposed far in the future harms supported by nothing more substantial than conjecture and unvalidated computer models.
Following the voodoo.
And they had to stretch the analysis out to 300 years to find any costs at all.
The Bureaucratic Hegemony is *NOT* authorized to make law under the Constitution. If Kagan does’t like that then she can resign and run for Congress and *make* the laws she wants followed.
The Court didn’t appoint itself an expert – EXCEPT IN THE CONSTITUTION!
Where did she get the idea of a “congressionally authorized agency action?” The majority opinion clearly articulated the standards for determining the authorities delegated to the Executive Branch by the specific language of legislation. In this case the agency obviously exceeded its remit. The three dissenting Justices’ opinion clearly was based on their policy preferences, not the Constitution nor the language of the Clean Air Act.
And thus why he voted with the libs and Roberts to allow Brandon to end TRUMP!S remain in Mexico rule, that was not specifically defined by Congress and the executive branch has discretion.
Due to 60 years of activist SCOTUS rulings making laws or “constitutional rights” out of whole cloth, I wish TRUMP! had known Gorsuch was a true believer in the law, and had, instead, appointed a true conservative.
What am I saying? The times Gorsuch has ruled with the leftists and Roberts, he was probably mostly right, although I would have preferred he had sided with the conservatives.
That is an amazing snipe at Obama, and one I will long remember.
But one that the Leftist politicians and media applauded at the time. An autocratic Executive is only to be feared if it is in the other party’s hands.
We’re all aware that any political process that works to the disadvantage of a given party is inherently corrupt and unconstitutional and must be immediately revised; and 4 years later will be pristine and fair.
What a great dig by Gorsuch at Obama! Several SCOTUS Conservatives seem to understand they are the last line of defense for this nation. Leftists get it, too. That’s why they want to destroy the Court (and harm Conservatives on it).
November can’t get here soon enough! We must not permit the election to be “postponed” or cancelled!
Clarence Thomas also dropped a big hint in his Roe v Wade decision remarks. He wants to dismantle “Substantive” Due Process.
Justice Clarence Thomas on the End of Roe and the Continuing Despotism of “Substantive” Due Process
When the Court uses “substantive due process” to justify a result, they become policy makers rather than judges.
https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/26/thomas-on-the-end-of-roe-and-the-continuing-despotism-of-substantive-due-process/
substantive due process
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/substantive_due_process
Substantive due process is the principle that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect fundamental rights from government interference. Specifically, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the government from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Fifth Amendment applies to federal action, and the Fourteenth applies to state action. Compare with procedural due process.
Thanks for the links.
So my interpretation of “substantive due process” is anything liberals and big government wants the constitution to mean, as in the famous living, breathing constitution.
Wouldn’t that mean that states cannot pass legislation to regulate abortion?
Since abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution or contemplated by the Founding Fathers during its development nor included in it by subsequent Amendments, the issue is left to the States, or to the People.
We have a Republic, if we can keep it.
The unions in our socialised NHS are now pressing for taxpayer funds to be used to provide abortions to any pregnant American, or any other nationality (and any gender). With waiting times for treatment in the NHS frequently exceeding a year, there could be some difficulties implementing such a policy.
Paul, will the regular laws still apply? If I understand correctly, they’re more restrictive than many, if not most, states.
“Administrative state” overturned? Are you serious? What, you think Congressmen and Senators are going to stop legislating and instead start processing permits and issuing violations and such?
Administration of any law that ever was enacted by any nation at any time in history was always the responsibility of hired and appointed bureaucrats, not elected officials. There was never any question about the authority of the Executive branch of our Federal government to administer and execute the laws passed by Congress – check it out, it’s in the Constitution, Article II. Going back to the administration of George Washington.
But administrators cannot write laws. They can write and enforce regulations as they are so authorized by statutory authority.
Exactly so the EPA needs to stand down and not write laws. It’s not their job.
Of course not. If the law in a state authorizes a Department of Motor Vehicles and requires the DMV to then license drivers that means the executive branch needs to oversee the licensing of drivers through the DMV. However, it doesn’t then mean the DMV gets to decide whether they should also be licensing boats, bicycles, go-carts, lawnmowers, golf carts (and golfers at the driving range). The problem in this instance is that Congress authorized the EPA to do something, and this is far outside of what was actually authorized. Whether the CO2 should be regulated is a question left for Congress to decide, not the EPA.
The problem is the US court system took 14 YEARS to shut this crap completely down.
A lot of good people lost their jobs and benefits in the process and did not become Hillary coders.
What is your point?
An administrative state cannot be dismantled without dismantling the state itself. No state has ever in history operated without administrators and enforcers. That would be anarchy.
The is no question regarding the need and continuance of any administrative state. What SCOTUS did was to simply order EPA to stop exceeding their administrative authority, which is defined solely by enacted statutes.
And that needs to happen much more often, including revisiting numerous regulations and the “legal analyses” that enable their existence.
The deeper problem is the permanent and deep state. Much of it is, in day-to-day practice, untethered from “the Administration” – the elected President and that portion of the blob that he controls. The permanent and deep state is almost untouched by the bedrock principle of checks and balances. It is a clear and present danger to liberty. Therefore, it must be reduced in size and brought to heel
“Deep state” is a right wingnut myth. There is only one state – a state governed by laws enacted by Congress under Article I of the Constitution, and administered by the Executive branch under Article II.
Governments consist of people and people frequently overstep their authority … the judicial branch under Article III exists to step in when any part of the government or the people oversteps their authority – a never ending process. Everything worked here, even if it took years to work its way.
I worked at a fairly high level within the Deep State. I tell you it exists and is an open joke with most government employees. “Oh, that [elected politician or political appointee] will be gone soon and we will carry on as usual.”
Justice delayed is justice denied. The entire energy industry is currently bein decimated by the Deep State and Executive Orders while Brandon slow-rolls the Judiciary.
Shouldn’t you be elsewhere droning on and on about the Greatest Naval Vessels In The History Of The world™ AKA “LCS”? Just because one could be commandeered by any yacht with two or more concealed carry weapon holders on board doesn’t mean the ChiComms don’t tremble in fear at the sight of one of them on the horizon… bobbing in the water… with smoke pouring out of its ground-up gears…
You’re an obtuse, humorless scold who constantly slips into the role of Captain Obvious boring kids in an 8th grade civics class. But, here in the real world, the ever-growing Leviathan State is a direct threat to liberty. Our awful Leftist Blob of Bureaucrats exceeds anything the Soviet apparatchiks could ever muster. And it’s more byzantine than the Byzantines ever were!
Marijuana opium state law versus federal law.
Hello.
The Feds and Supremes said that a pothead growing or dealing his own weed is involved in Interstate Commerce and can be regulated. The same as growing your own wheat for your own consumption affects Interstate Commerce such that you can be regulated.
The autocratic government in the U.S. runs deep and wide and has unlimited time and money to effect its desires. The great President Ronald Reagan said approximately: The nine most feared words are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
The problem is that Congress no longer writes the law, the Bureaucratic Hegemony does! Congress never passed a law about CO2 – the EPA just made that up on its own!
You are almost correct. Congresspersons do not write ANY legislation. They have not since the early 90s. Nearly 100% of legislation is now written by special interests and simply given to the legislators to submit as a bill. That is why Pelosi said, “we must pass the bill to see what is in it.” Literally representative in Congress had read the bill. Perhaps a few congressional aides read it, but zero representatives. This is how we get bills that are untethered from reality.
It is irrelevant who actually puts the words on paper or a word processor. Only Congressmen and Senators have the authority to vote on and enact Federal law, and therefore Congress writes the laws.
No, not the same thing at all, Duane. Especially where Congressmen and Senators don’t even read the bills. I lobbied the Nevada Legislature over two different biennial sessions and I observed that practice many times, even participating in it when it came to my pet electric energy desires.
Modern legislation writing is so complex and obscure that few outside of very narrow expertise on any given subject can read and make sense of legislation. Most legislators simply follow their leadership when voting on bills that are not in their specific areas of interest. That’s why Nancy said what she said.
not quite Weylan. Why there no doubt is a good deal of special interest “handing” the legislature legislation to write, that’s not what Nancy was talking about.
Far be it from me to defend Ms Pelosi (trust me I’m not), but she was talking about the process of getting a bill to the presidents desk to sign – which involves a lot of negotiations between congress critters. Many amendments to bills get added and subtracted along the way, the house comes up with one version of a bill and the senate another and the differences between the two need to be ironed out. You literally can’t know everything that’s in the final bill until after that process plays out (and of course, as Dave points out many congress critters simply vote they way leadership wants them to without ever bothering to read what it is they are voting on unless it’s a bill that is of particular interest to them).
That said, however, what Nancy said was rightly ridiculed because while you won’t know all the finer details of a bill, you do (or should) know what the major points and general thrust of it are from the outset.
Not true. Congress does write the laws, and the laws are supreme to every other authority but the Constitution.
I guess it’s “unprecedented” and other agenda science and IPCC phrasing eh Duane?
Duane, a clarification: Your “hired and appointed bureaucrats” are nominally directed by the elected President. The “Administrative State” (more accurately the “Deep State”) acts independently of Executive control, which is administered by the President. It writes its own laws (regulations) of a generally Leftist bent and which serve to entrench an autocratic government. A free people need to stop that pernicious crap.
The Court usually answers only the question they’re asked. But there are hints in the opinions that suggest they’d be receptive to additional questions.
Of course. Judicial opinions can only answer matters before the court, which is why judicial policy usually is defined by not just one decision but by a series of decisions. The makeup of the court court itself evolves over time.
Looking forward to the chipping away at Chevron Deference until it is no longer a thing.
“Tie goes to the runner ….”
(Response: There is no such thing as a tie, you dumbass. Tie is not in the rules now, nor was it ever in the rules.)
“The court shall defer to the govt administrative agency when in doubt, or when it does not have the capacity to understand the specifics, or as an excuse to hide it’s own laziness/bias”
(Response: The Chevron Deference is just a misplaced & misunderstood, but accepted concept, that needs to go away … in a manner that calls out the lazy dumbassery of John Paul Stevens & Scalia & others.)
It shouldn’t just be chipped away until it is no longer a thing and then shunned … it needs to be explicitly overturned at first opportunity.
It’s the thought that counts at EPA for brownie points in the progressive left mind and donations to the Party. When does Jenn get nominated to the Supreme Court anyway?
If they apply this principle generally, it will have other consequences. They defacto overrode the “endangerment” ruling in Massachusetts v EPA, that CO2 was a danger.
SCOTUS didn’t rule on the merits or demerits, endangerment or otherwise, of the EPA rule … SCOTUS ruled only that EPA has no authority from Congress to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
It’s coming Duane and CO2 is life.
A strong(er) case can now be made that, in general, the Permanent State is not (so) free to just make up regulations that have the same practical force as bills passed and signed into law.
The next sane President should order at least one massive department to be moved far away from The Hive – AKA “Washington DC” – to barren federal land in a western state, preferably hundreds of miles from the nearest Leftist ant hill, AKA “big city”.
Any Bureau Brat that squawks and whines about the move should be told, “We understand if you don’t feel you can relocate. Thank you for your service. Goodbye.”
This is nothing new – it requires never ending vigilance to deal with the balance of powers as prescribed by the Constitution. The framers well intended for there to be a permanent competition between the three branches of our Federal government.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the Leviathan State. But don’t let me interrupt you as you work your PowerPoint slideshow on civics for 8th graders!
Trump already did that with BLM and I believe Brandon is already unwinding it.
The courts are in no position to legislate let alone govern science. Congress is assigned the job of making policy, while science is never settled but evolves constantly, with lots of arguments along the way.
Which is why courts have never ruled on whether Common Sense, AKA Creationism, can be taught in schools. Oh wait…
Congress can fix that very quickly, if they so desire.
60 votes in the Senate, unless the Dems end the filibuster, which Brandon is now calling for over abortion.
The Dems got 14 RINO squishes to cross over for the latest version of ‘common sense gun control’, so I don’t think we’re out of the woods on CO2 regulation.
But more broadly on an agencies ability to right regulations not grant by the law passed by congress. This is a huge step to restoring the rule of law and forcing congress to actually do their damn job and take the power away from arbitrary rules created by bureaucrats.
It is even more narrow than that; they can’t regulate CO2 emission with this sort of program.
Thanks, Duane….
The whole issue will only be resolved if that SCOTUS ruling back from the Bush administration is canned like the ROE one.
If we take away CO2, party over.
Regulate big stuff as EPA did with “clean air/water”, which seems very obvious to see, smell, taste, etc.
Gums sends…
Cancel the Leftist eco-cult of environmentalism and get back to widely supported conservation. I’m old enough to remember when US rivers CAUGHT! ON! FIRE! We all knew real work had to be done then.
But Leftists literally tried to classify mud puddles as wet lands – so they could federalize them. And Leftists think atmospheric CO2 is a pollutant!!
We cannot let public policy be dictated by either the cynical grifters that push such nonsense or the credulous fawns that lap it up.
I read that the EPA wants to curtail production in the Permian basin for violating ozone pollution standards – I wonder if today’s ruling will impact that one.
The EPA is a Leftist cesspool that has literally paid activists to write up complaints about a topic… so the EPA can then claim they are merely responding to the clamor for action coming from “concerned citizens”.
The DOJ tried to pull that same stunt when they recently tried to classify actual concerned citizens – parents speaking up at school board meetings – as terrorists!
The Permanent and Deep State – the Leftist Borg – has become a clear and present danger to liberty.
It is actually worse than that. The activists sue the EPA and then the EPA settles out of court (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) and makes a new rule (law) to settle the suit. No need for Congressional action. They just create a new law. “Hey we have to make this new rule due to the lawsuit we did not try to win.” This is the same process used in states to enact changes in election laws in 2020. Sue and settle.
A trifecta from the Supreme Court this week.
Wow, upholding the 2nd amendment, throwing the abortion question back to the states, now telling the EPA they don’t have unlimited power just because they want it. I amazed.
Finally, some level of sanity prevails. Congress will never be able to pass laws limiting CO2 emissions. The midterm results will stop them dead in their tracks.
Indeed. Well worth the 4 years of “mean tweets” to have a majority sane Supreme Court for once.
Thank you, Supremes, for saving us from tyranny and overreach government on a massive scale.
The “founders” of your country had amazing foresight and intelligence.
EPA factional power grab by declaring a normal component of human breath and the atmosphere to be a “pollutant” falling under their authority is now over.
DmacKenzie: I was just waiting for triathletes/marathoners to be imposed limits on their training e.g. capping the length of the highest CO2 per mile events such as running vs biking.
The three-letter agencies will simply ignore the supreme court.
Just like DHS and “Remain in Mexico”.
Maybe, but this ruling does provide cover for any state that rightfully decides it doesn’t want to enforce an over-reaching agency’s rulings within its jurisdiction. It will be interesting to see which ones actually stand up for their citizens.
If the EPA persists in trying to shutter the Permian Basin due to ozone infractions, Texas will simply ignore them.
Exactly. Per Thomas Jefferson,
‘That the several states who formed that [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy……’
Nope they cannot do that
Accurate ruling, but three of the justices continue to disregard an obvious interpretation of the law, Very telling. Biden is going to get a lot of renewed pressure to expand The Court,
The blatant political split in the SCOTUS has been laid bare. It’s not based in logic or fact. The job of a judge is to interpret the law, not re-interpret the law, not de-facto create law.
It shows to me the futility of debating the LEFT. .
What a way to end “Pride” month! Now we have a reason to be “proud” again. Let the dismantling of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL alphabet soup agencies begin in earnest.
Still no parade of lions and lionesses, but their [unPlanned] cubs are breathing life with gay abandon.
I hope the EPA ruling that CO2 is a pollutant can now be revisited and revoked, stopping a whole lot of political madness.
Looks like the Supremes (Stop In The Name Of Love) are the only sector of government that is functioning anywhere near correct.
Not as Yuuuge as I would have liked but it also paves the way to question the authority of any and all Federal Agencies which try to make policy on subjects outside of that specifically stated in the acts that they were founded under.
I’m no expert, it would seem to me that this ruling sets president that could effect a wide range of rulings by the various agencies of the Federal Government
it does and it is huge
I think this decision was written this way to invite a lot more suits. The idea would be to have conflicting opinions in the lower courts on a broad series of topics that the Supreme Court can then merge into a consolidated case. If every regulatory requirement that is outside the bounds of the statutory charter of an agency is challenged we should expect to see dozens of cases over the next few years in the 5th and 9th circuit generating very conflicting opinions. Then the Supreme Court would be called on to clear the water.
…and the air. LOL
I disagree. I think before all is said and done a good chunk of the modern regulatory state will come down.
This ruling has a more subtle effect than Bruen or Dobbs, but the ultimate reach will be greater. You’re not hearing the progressives freak out as much because (a) outrage exhaustion has set in, (b) the implications are more subtle and harder to turn into a soundbite, and (c) they’re obligated to celebrate enthusiastically that today the first black, I-can’t-define-what-one-is-but-I-know-one-when-it-serves-the-cause is now a member of the Court.
The concurring opinion by Justice Kavenaugh, joined by Justice Alito makes clear that Congress not providing clear direction or indeed failing to act at all does not give executive branch agencies carte blanche to effect significant new policy shifts or impose major new economic burdens by administrative law. I.e., exactly what they have done for the past 30+ years.
The dissenters’ argument is basically that somebody has to make the trains run on time when the Congress either can’t or won’t.
This reminds me of a Soviet-era joke. During the upheaval following the fall of the Berlin Wall it was announced that final exams were postponed at the University of Moscow. The joke went:
Kind of like final exams in US constitutional law.
Best. Pride. Month. Ever!
This is very good news, even if not surprising given the current makeup of SCOTUS. CO2 is not a “pollutant” as defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, and the power to regulate carbon as such is not authorized by Congress. Only Congress has the power to make law, and any implementing regulations must be tightly tied to statutory authority.
The warmunists can yak all they like, but we are a nation of laws not preferences.
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments were the last laws actually passed by Congress granting power to the EPA to regulate air pollution. There were separate laws governing six “criteria pollutants” (SO2, carbon MONoxide, nitrous oxides, lead, Volatile Organic Compounds, and particulates), and other regulations concerning over 100 various “Hazardous Air Pollutants” (mostly organic chemicals that have known toxic effects if inhaled), which are all listed in the statute itself, with “threshold quantities” that trigger the application of the law to an industry that produces or uses them. Carbon dioxide does not appear on either list, so that Congress did not grant authority to the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions.
The “criteria pollutants” are governed by a “cap and trade” policy, where total emissions targets are set by state regulatory agencies, and industries that reduce emissions well below their limit can sell the “right to emit” pollutants to other industries that may be over the limit, giving all industries the incentive to install pollution control equipment that can capture (and convert to harmless materials) a large percentage (usually >95%) of the emitted pollutants. Industries that are over the limits must install “Best Available Control Technology” (defined in the statute) or face hefty fines.
In 2010, when Democrats held the Presidency (Barack Obama), a majority in the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, they attempted to pass a “cap-and-trade” law for CO2 through Congress. The bill passed the House, but failed to gain even a 50-vote majority in the Senate, because several Democrat Senators came from coal-producing states such as PA, OH, WV, VA, and MT, who refused to vote for a bill that would damage their states’ economy. Some of those Senators have since been replaced by Republicans, and three Democrat Senators (Casey of PA, Tester of MT, and Manchin of WV) still represent coal states, so that such a bill could not pass Congress now.
Obama tried to do an end-run around Congress, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2007 “endangerment finding” about CO2. The EPA’s rules were very ambiguous and counter-productive, because they only applied to facilities emitting over 100,000 tons/year of CO2, which is equivalent to generating about 38 MW of electricity using natural gas. This meant that small, inefficient generators producing less than 5 MW were exempted, while larger, more efficient power plants, using gas turbines that generate 250 MW each, struggled to reach the targets, despite the fact that natural gas emits less CO2 per MW than coal. There was also the problem of defining Best Available Control Technology when very little such technology was available for capturing CO2 emissions!
The latest SCOTUS decision rightfully puts this question to Congress, not the EPA, since the role of the Executive branch is to “faithfully enforce” the laws, but all “legislative authority” is vested in Congress. There aren’t enough votes in the current Senate to pass such a law, and Congress is likely to be more Republican next year, so that the laws governing EPA are unlikely to change through the rest of Biden’s term. SCOTUS has stripped away the ability of wannabe-king Biden’s EPA to create “laws” without a mandate from Congress.
Now if there was a way to force Biden to allow more drilling and fracking for more oil and gas in this country, that would be a huge improvement! It wouldn’t hurt the environment, since burning fuel from North Dakota or west Texas doesn’t produce any more CO2 than burning fuel from Saudi Arabia, and less fuel is burned transporting it to where it is used.
I’m hopeful the voters of MT will come to their senses and run Tester out of there.
Amen, three in a row!
That nasty Endangerment finding needs to be overturned
And until it is EPA & other agencies can continue to find other ways to regulate it.
The overturning of Roe vs Wade was a gift for the Democrats because there are a lot of people who will vote Democrat on that issue this November that might have voted otherwise. This will occur in those states that have ancient laws on the books that could be enforced. Those would be conservative “Red” states. Privately the Democrats probably jumped for joy.
Couple that with the thousands of mules that won’t be carrying cell phones this time around, and it looks very unlikely that there will be a tsunami of Republican votes on election day.
The new 2023-24 Congress will no doubt write law that the EPA is prevented from doing. And there will be plenty of help from the stupid party to help get this done.
I certainly hope I’m wrong.
Besides all that, we are going to endure Democrat incited riots, and we all know what those look like.
Besides all that, we are going to endure Democrat incited riots, and we all know what those look like.
Lately those riots and demonstrations look to me like a bunch of mostly fat and ugly white chicks screaming and having temper tantrums.
My body my choice 😉
I think you are dead wrong. The only thing that could stop a red tsunami from happening is many more than 2000 mules in many states. Not going to happen this time around. Sure, they will be successful in blue power states but the Dems were going to win those seats anyway. The new Congress will swing red by 50 seats.
I certainly hope you are right.
Hope so! But I don’t think the abortion decision will necessarily be helpful in that regard, as Steve pointed out.
How many conservatives think of abortion as a key issue? I would say it is very few. My wife and daughters certainly are more concerned about the economy and crime.
How many people do you think are going to be persuaded to vote for Democrats based on Dobbs, and in which states? I seriously doubt that there are more swing voters in Georgia that care about abortion than care about gas cost. Ditto for Arizona, Pennsylvania, Florida…
The places people care deeply are New York, Oklahoma… where the outcome is already known.
Not many it seems: https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/republicans-actually-gaining-in-generic-ballot-after-roe/
It will be so for some for sure. But in the end, it’s pocketbook issues that will rule the day I think. The economy and inflation. Did you notice that Biden’s poll numbers in the RCP average still continued to drop AFTER the Dobbs v. Jackson decision.
The vast majority of people who consider are really upset about this ruling, would never have voted for a Republican in the first place, and most of them live in states that the Democrats were going to win by huge margins anyway.
That is certainly their hope, but polls taken since the Dobbs decision was handed down don’t show that.
The thing here is, it’s good to stop the administrative state from pushing their cult agenda without express approval in legislation from Congress. It also rolls back the admin state in everything else, where agencies cannot just make up rules on big things that affect We The People without express authorization from Congress. So, lawmakers need to spend less time posturing and preening and twittering and virtue signaling and stuff, and spend time crafting specific legislation
…and spend time crafting specific legislation
_____________________________________
And you might not like what the huge number
of believers in the CO2 crisis will come up with.
Yes the dogma of the Church of We’re All Going to Die is common and widespread.
1) Whatever they come up with, it’s unlikely to be worse that what the EPA was trying to do.
2) By having to vote on it, they put themselves on the record and give ammunition to those running against them come election time.
This doesn’t apply specifically to Congress, but I’m forced to quote Obama, and apply his words to that group…”Never underestimate Joe’s ability to f**k things up.”
The Congress needs to spend time not crafting new legislation but rather repealing obsolete, ambiguously worded, legislation open to oppressive administrative interpretation and over reach that punishes the American people for Federal violations most people are not aware of they are violating. The overall size of the Federal Government, the number of Federal Agencies, and the Administrative State must be reduced to prevent tyranny.
The ambiguous wording is a feature not a weakness to the politicians since they don’t have to go on record for specific items.
Just like the SCOTUS ruling on abortion that Biden defied by continuing to squirt mandates against it, this court’s ruling will also be ignored while the armed EPA continues to regulate CO2. There is no rule of law, no due process, no constitutional authority, and no Republic. Can you smell it?
State Governors can not ignore the SCOTUS.
The President can ignore SCOTUS, but in State level the position of the President has no merit or value while against a SCOTUS verdict.
A presidential executive order that ignores, conflicts and/or contradicts a SCOTUS decision, does not offer protection or immunity to a State Governor.
cheers
When finally have a court that can read the Constitution and understands that Congress must explicitly delegate authority to an agency before they have the authority to promulgate a regulation.
It would be interesting to read of what the dissenters said. More “substantive due process?”
Easily available on the Supreme Court site.
Sadly, like everything else it seems, the Biden administration will be ahead of this and will have numerous alternative means of achieving the same end.
A failed amendment:
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
The ERA’s first section states “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” It was intended to place into law the equality of men and women. It was sent to the states in March, 1972. The original seven year deadline was extended to ten years. It expired unratified in 1982.
The text:
Consider that the Left has redefined the word “sex” in Title IX to allow men into girls bathrooms and men to invade women’s sports.
We dodged a BIG bullet when that failed!
Careful – it has been remanded. It ain’t over yet.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
If the Appeals Court doesn’t abide by ruling, they’ll be squelched again.
I think that in addition to clipping EPA’s wings on regulating CO2, it is virtually certain that there will be a SCOTUS ruling nullifying SEC’s new requirement for companies to disclose their CO2 emissions and their actions to reduce CO2, a new rule that was just proposed in March of this year. If EPA does not have the authority from Congress to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, then certainly SEC also does not the authority from Congress to regulate disclosures of CO2 emissions by companies. Again, no such Federal law authorizes that action, and now there is no basis even to claim that CO2 emissions present any threat to anybody at all.
However, given that SEC’s current membership has proposed this rule, it seems likely they will still attempt to impose it, only to be challenged in Federal court immediately, with courts staying the rule until SCOTUS finally overturns it.
And this also calls into question the authority of States to attempt to regulate CO2, because CO2 obviously crosses all state and international borders. Expect a slew of lawsuits filed by interstate companies against states like California and New York seeking to overturn their laws attempting to regulate CO2 via the “Federal preemption” requirement in the Constitution.
This ruling is only the first domino to fall in the warmunists failed attempts to regulate CO2 in America. It will all fall apart within the next several years.
Is there a case before the court for that? SCOTUS is going into summer recess.
There can be no suit against SEC until they actually publish their rule – courts don’t take cases until they are “ripe”. I expect SEC to issue the rule, unless they are smart enough to take the EPA case outcome as a warning. As soon as the rule is issued it will be challenged in Federal court, and a lower court will likely issue an injunction against enforcing the rule until a final ruling on the merits is made, provided a proper claim is made by a complainant with standing.
O how slowly, creakily turn the wheels of Justice … Yet it turns!
This ruling has much wider implications. Well beyond climate questions. The SC has given The People a mechanism to control the Beaurocracy.
All I can say is… Thank God for Donald J. Trump!
The EPA, IRS, etc. are part of the Executive Branch of the US Government under The Constitution.
Being part of the Executive Branch, they do not have the authority to legislate, enact regulations that have the effect of Law.
(Even “Executive Orders” in the absence of a clear and present danger have gone too far. If Congress has time to act to address an emergency, there is no need for an “Executive Order”.)
Laws are for Congress, another Branch, to pass.
Our 3rd Branch of Constitutional Government has taken a step to correct the imbalance that has gone of for way too long!
(I sense another temper tantrum coming on!)
For those who want to read it for themselves.
Link to the ruling : https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
The above PDF file is 89 pages long and contains :
It is sad, but predictable, that Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer seem to have no problem with the EPA’s self-declared Enabling Act.
I’m willing to bet 6 of the justice’s also know what a woman is
They’d better. Because the 3 that will vote against the 6 are all women now.
Whats it called when women vote against men? Oh yeah “misandry”
WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA KAGAN, J., dissenting
Climate change’s causes and dangers are no longer subject to serious doubt. Modern science is “unequivocal that human influence”—in particular, the emission of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide—“has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sixth Assessment Report, The Physical Science Basis: Headline Statements 1 (2021)
So says a judge that is supposed to rule on law rather than state what ‘science’ she believes in.
Kagan, unsurprisingly, has no understanding of the role of the Supreme Court under the constitution. As always, under the mental disorder of liberalism, the ends justify the means.
Which is why these rulings are so important in the first place, to get decisions back to legislators and not bureaucrats with similar views, unhindered.
Your honor, I move that the entire testimony of the witness be stricken as irrelevant and immaterial and failing to address the question at hand.
That’s discomforting because the case was not about “science” but regulatory powers. No wonder we can’t communicate with these people. They don’t even know what the court cases are about.
Are you implying that a liberal education may be highly over-rated?
Oh, my…
Not a good week for Leftists. Bless their hearts.
The Legislative Branch will now actually have to do their jobs and pass laws with detailed and defined parameters with careful cost/benefit analysis, rather than giving basically all authority to the Executive Branch’s unelected Bureaucracy to implement massive $multi-trillion/year environmental policies, regulations, mandates, laws, rules, etc., that have utterly destroyed the US economy for Leftists’ vain attempt at creating Utopia…
We should shutdown the Federal EPA and leave it to states to determine their own environmental policies that match the desires of their constituents.
Unfortunately, the desires of many such constituents are uninformed by reason or science.
I read the Robert’s opinion, Gorsuch’s concurrence, and Kayan’s dissent before commenting.
It is a victory for common sense, but a much narrower win than many commenters here believe. The ruling concerns the Obama CPP (where EPA would have forced electricity generation from coal to natgas), and is based on the pre-existing major questions doctrine. That doctrine holds that on major questions (there are, as Gorsuch explains, three categories), the congressional delegation of power to an agency must be clear and explicit. Here, in the CCA, it obviously wasn’t.
It does nothing about Mass v EPA or the subsequent EPA CO2 endangerment finding. It does nothing about linear no threshold EPA regulation (pm2.5 is an example). It is limited to existing electricity generation facilities, because that was the scope of the CPP—so does not address issues like Cali dictating national auto emission standards (which Trump stopped but Biden again greenlighted, probably a future SCOTUS major questions case concerning the ability of the EPA to grant a Cali exception).
Thank you, Rud,
A few here today understand that. I applaud the ruling, but it does not get to the root of the problem we face as long as many continue to blame carbon dioxide for global climate thermostat-like capability.
Today’s decision does provide a path to correct that terrible decision re: Mass v EPA. Even then, Justice Ginsburg stated that maybe SCOTUS should not be ruling on “science”. Somehow, I feel she was thinking about the Scopes trial way back.
Gums sends…
I have the same reservations for the same reasons. As I’ve been saying for three years, the Clean Power Plan was certain to fail in the courts. IMHO, it was designed from the get-go to fail in the courts.
What approach might have a better chance of surviving in the courts?
The environmental law community has long promoted the option of classifying carbon GHG’s as ‘criteria pollutants’ using a process already included in the Clean Air Act which allows the EPA to add new criteria pollutants to the original list from fifty years ago.
Classifying carbon GHG’s as criteria pollutants would enable a number of powerful regulatory tools for controlling America’s carbon emissions.
I will speculate that environmental lawfare specialists have known for some time that the Clean Power Plan would be struck down if seriously challenged, and have been preparing themselves accordingly.
So I will not be too surprised if the EPA announces that it is moving forward with a criteria pollutant type of anti-carbon strategy. Because the process for adding new ones is already included in the law, even if it has never been used.
Here’s how it might start: An EPA spokeperson says: “Congress said in the Clean Air Act that the EPA can add new criteria pollutants if we follow the process correctly. That is just what we will do.”
Now it is time to remove the CO2 as a pollutant decree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Probably the biggest legacy of Trump will be 3 SCOTUS picks. And about the only good thing I can say about the Senate in the last couple of decades is stonewalling Obama’s final SCOTUS pick. You can bet the Progressives are already scheming ways to “cancel” SCOTUS.
Notice the court is pre-judged, endorsed “Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” They only rejected, correctly, because the law didn’t grant the EPA those powers
And then there’s this Deep State pronouncement.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/19/biden-epa-chief-vows-to-ignore-supreme-court-on-epa-regulation-of-coal-plants/
Get the popcorn. With Senator Patrick Leahy (Communist – Vermont) out for who know’s how long with a broken hip, the Democrats will need the help of RINOs to pass any more destructive bills. Power companies can test the resolve of the EPA to try to impose now-illegal “mandates” on them. The turd in the punchbowl is Merrick Garland and his gang of SS enforcers to deal with.
The Biden administration, and its justice department are rapidly building a reputation for their willingness to put political opponents “back in chains,” to coin a phrase.
There is no aspect of your existence from conception until long after death that does not involve the emission of CO2. Once the state asserts the authority to regulate CO2, there is absolutely no aspect of your life that will be safe from authoritarian control. Anything the Progressive state decides it doesn’t like about your life, they would be free to regulate.
This ruling is a big pushback against inevitable totalitarianism.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/activity-6948300959940841472-iVPU?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web
Unfortunately, it is very clear that the Congress can pass unscientific laws at any time.
What Left, Right or Center Totalitarian Governments have in common is autonomous bureaucracies.
Former Energy Secretary Rick Perry and former EPA director Andrew Wheeler joined Larry Kudlow to discuss this ruling and it’s implications:
https://youtu.be/DoxfLaH28j8
Prior to this you had the Senate vote unanimously against the Green New Deal because they had the regulatory overreach route going for them in the Party quest for donations at your expense.
I guess EPA can return to “all things asthma” again for agenda war room operations.
I guess Obama can now sulk at his beach mansions after this. The great con job has ended.
Maybe science can be saved next?
I’m not sure what good news could beat this–maybe Putin poisoned by his aids or “girlfriend.”
I guess the next GOP Supreme Court nominee will have to be Jesus, but he will get Borked anyway.
Omg, Jesus?
How could someone with such outdated bigoted opinions get a majority in the Senate?
Sen Pocahontas (S -MA):
Mr Jesus, can you assure this committee that you will uphold gay marriage and LGBQIT+ rights?
JC: Senator, I hate the sin but love the sinner.
(Pop pop pop pop pop!! Demonrat Senator heads explode)
After all the fuss they made over Kavenaugh’s drinking of beer, imagine the hullaballo over turning water into wine!!!!
This article is incorrect. The Court struck down Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan on the grounds that the EPA cannot expansively extend its authority to prescribe a “system” of emissions reductions for sources of emissions to the entire grid. The Court previously held that the EPA can regulate CO2; that ruling is unchanged.
Is there a case pending on UN and world court overreach?
There should be a class action lawsuit filed against the U.S. Government and all federal agencies and officers seeking trillions of dollars in loses resulting from the illegal actions taken against their companies, officers and employees as well as against the states, counties and cities that occurred as a consequence of the U. S. Government and its agencies illegal actions based upon EPA CO2 driven unconstitutional authority.
Folks need to read the decision. The SCOTUS ruled on extent of emissions control, not on co2 as a pollutant.
Read first, then post
Just in: Biden just cancelled leases in Utah, It’s running paywalled in the Salt Lake City trib.
Here is some background from May 2022
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2022/05/15/apc-utah-among-states-asking-fed-appeals-court-did-biden-legally-suspended-oil-and-gas-lease-sales/#.Yr35Ay9E2fA
civilization survives!
I wish the ruling was broader in scope. The regulatory state is out of control.
Let’s be honest, the problems the EPA was created to solve have been largely solved, if not entirely solved. This is true of many regulatory entities. Rather than fading away, the regulatory state just expands its mission and creates reasons for its continuing existence.
IMO, every agency, bureau, commission, etc., should have to justify its continued existence on a regularly scheduled basis. Each of these entities has one or more bills that define its charter. Every budget request should include how the items fill the mission, that is, each item must have a law behind it.
People keep saying the court is majority conservative. But, if they realy were conservative and originalists (i.e. the Constitution should be interprested to mean what it meant when it was ratified), there wouldn’t even BE an EPA agency. Sadly, both Dems and Reps, want the power to change the Constitution without bothering with an amendment.
The signers all thought the words in the Constitution limited it to the enumerated powers. (i.e. the powers that are listed for it). And an EPA is not one of those things. So the powers the EPA claim, are reserved for the states to exercise if they want to use it.
Is an originalist allowed to use computer?
Sometimes a brief criticism is hard to figure out. But, if you are concerned about updating interpretations as things change, that is not a problem for an originalist.
And even things like creating an Air Force, or Space Force are not really a problem. Though, they are cannot legally be created at the same level of authority as the Army, Navy and Marines that the Constitution specifies to exist. But, the Air Force and military space program were both created under the Army. It should simply be the Army Space Force, etc.
The right to bear arms is another good example. Machine guns were invented long before the Constitution was ratified. They weren’t yet practical, but most of the signers would certainly have known about them, and expected weapons to continue to develop. Arms are arms, regardless of its capability. So, any talk of an assault weapons ban, is quite unconstitutional. If they want that, the Constitution has to be amended.
There is a reason there was a process to amend the Constitution. Sometimes things need to be changed. Changing the meaning of the “General Welfare” clause is how they are doing it. But, changing it by redefining what the words said at the time, is not permitted.
Now the progs are countering with a coup at the USSC…
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/30/markey-bowman-join-climate-coalition-urging-scotus-expansion
and yet this will have no effect on closure rate of US coal plant or get any new coal plant built.
So Much For Coal’s Rebound – Plant Closures Come Roaring Back. It’s Time To Unlock A Just Transition. (forbes.com)
Lots of coal restarting in germany
Just haven’t gotten to the level of destruction here, with luck we arrested it in time
I wonder how many nanoseconds before the automotive industry hops on this one. Generator-motor pairing replacing a mechanical linkage turns the engine into a power plant. XD
The SCOTUS ruling made it clear as could be to the EPA. Strictly stay in your lane as defined by your charter.
But the EPA obviously isn’t listening based on this response:
It is not in the EPAs Charter to be concerned with “reducing pollution that is driving climate change”, “support the industries ongoing efforts to grow our clean energy economy”, “create jobs”, “gobal competitiveness”, or even “lowering costs.”
Not really. This looks merely like EPA being slapped for failure to remember the chains of command, both formal and informal.
There’s nothing that stops the Green Morgenthau Plan from sneaking through another door.
Jeez, I’ve been out of the loop for a few days and incredible things have happened.