why this thread doesn’t exist blows muh mind … you guys are smarter than this omission … what a novel idea - allow those elected to vote on record as opposed to hiding behind muh PACs…
Quote:The Supreme Court is expected to release a decision soon on West Virginia v. EPA, a case that could fundamentally reshape the way the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates air pollution and hamper the Biden Administration’s ability to tackle climate change. The plaintiffs — 19 Republican attorneys general working alongside two coal companies — argue that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate power plant emissions and this authority should instead be granted to Congress.
(This post was last modified: 06-29-2022 07:22 AM by stinkfist.)
EPA, another department thats utterly worthless and should go away. Regulations should be by state and federal legislation not via the executive branch.
Stink, you beat me to it. I was just getting ready to post on that story, so here goes.....emphasis mine.
Quote:Supreme Court poised to drop another bombshell ruling after Roe v Wade
It seems overturning Roe v. Wade may not be the biggest decision to come down from the Supreme Court as its ruling on West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency could strip the government and alphabet agencies of their unfettered powers.
THIS could really change the way things are done in Washington for the better.
Quote:The case asks whether pressing policies that have an impact on the lives of all Americans should be made by unelected bureaucrats or by Congress. The ruling could decide that governing by executive agency fiat is unconstitutional, according to Fox News.
The case takes direct aim at President Biden’s climate agenda and involves the Clean Power Plan. That plan was put in place under former President Barack Obama in his efforts to combat climate change. If the plan had been implemented it would have cost roughly $33 billion per year and reordered the nation’s power grid. Two coal companies and the state of West Virginia sued the EPA alleging the plan was an abuse of power.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is the primary plaintiff and is joined by Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen other states, as well as the two coal companies which are also being represented by Morrissey’s office.
Quote:If the high court decides in West Virginia’s favor, that could throw a wrench into the powers of the alphabet agencies in D.C. The power to decide important issues that affect all Americans would be returned to the legislators who are elected. In other words, the power to make such decisions would be returned to the states just as the abortion decision was. Federal agencies would no longer be empowered to write our laws.
If Congress were put in charge, environmental rules intended to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy would be stalled. Climate change would be debated by legislators publicly and the actual cost of proposed regulations would be revealed.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of West Virginia, it will save the coal industry. Westmoreland Mining Holdings, North American Coal Corporation, and others will win a huge victory and it will be a death knell for Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda.
Democrats have buried the actual costs of abandoning oil and gas in favor of their green agenda. Once consumers see what wind and solar power actually cost, they are likely to balk at the whole inane concept that Biden calls the “Great Transition.”
The ruling would not only affect environmental regulations, it would severely smack the hands of federal agencies when making decisions. The mess engendered by alphabet agencies started in the 1930s with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. That created a whopping 69 offices and executive branch agencies that have since meddled in every aspect of Americans’ lives.
Taking the power away from those agencies and returning it to the states would streamline politics so that things would get done on a local level rather than bogged down at the federal one.
Agencies such as the FDA, CDC, and a whole raft of other bureaucracies could find themselves not only severely limited in scope and power, but the subject of numerous lawsuits such as ones that challenge labor laws, consumer protection mandates, and edicts by the EPA.
Before his untimely death, the legendary originalist Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a decision, “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.'”
Conservative justices on the court today appear to be in agreement with that sentiment.
This refers to what is known as the The Major Questions Doctrine — the premise that if Congress intended agencies to make sweeping, economywide changes with their regulations, the relevant legislation must say so specifically and clearly.
I'll be watching for this bombshell ruling. Hope it comes soon.
I'm wondering if this will be one ruling where the media doesn't mind covering, since it affects us all. But, then again, the media is also in on bashing the SC no matter what because it dared reverse Roe v Wade. They mad.
Unlike abortion, poor environmental stewardship can cross state lines and impact neighboring states. Polluted air and streams don't just stop at state borders.
(06-29-2022 02:21 PM)Niner National Wrote: Unlike abortion, poor environmental stewardship can cross state lines and impact neighboring states. Polluted air and streams don't just stop at state borders.
I'd rather see the states affected regulate it, instead of a bunch of bureaucrats in D.C. who are un-elected and unaccountable. If the states affected regulate it, there is some accountability.
(06-29-2022 02:21 PM)Niner National Wrote: Unlike abortion, poor environmental stewardship can cross state lines and impact neighboring states. Polluted air and streams don't just stop at state borders.
I'd rather see the states affected regulate it, instead of a bunch of bureaucrats in D.C. who are un-elected and unaccountable. If the states affected regulate it, there is some accountability.
I'm not against federal regulations, but what I'm against is the standards being changed from POTUS to POTUS via EO. Congress should initiate the guidelines and the EPA enforce such guidelines. That's not happening in today's political climate.
(06-29-2022 11:27 AM)MileHighBronco Wrote: Stink, you beat me to it. I was just getting ready to post on that story, so here goes.....emphasis mine.
Quote:Supreme Court poised to drop another bombshell ruling after Roe v Wade
It seems overturning Roe v. Wade may not be the biggest decision to come down from the Supreme Court as its ruling on West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency could strip the government and alphabet agencies of their unfettered powers.
THIS could really change the way things are done in Washington for the better.
Quote:The case asks whether pressing policies that have an impact on the lives of all Americans should be made by unelected bureaucrats or by Congress. The ruling could decide that governing by executive agency fiat is unconstitutional, according to Fox News.
The case takes direct aim at President Biden’s climate agenda and involves the Clean Power Plan. That plan was put in place under former President Barack Obama in his efforts to combat climate change. If the plan had been implemented it would have cost roughly $33 billion per year and reordered the nation’s power grid. Two coal companies and the state of West Virginia sued the EPA alleging the plan was an abuse of power.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is the primary plaintiff and is joined by Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen other states, as well as the two coal companies which are also being represented by Morrissey’s office.
Quote:If the high court decides in West Virginia’s favor, that could throw a wrench into the powers of the alphabet agencies in D.C. The power to decide important issues that affect all Americans would be returned to the legislators who are elected. In other words, the power to make such decisions would be returned to the states just as the abortion decision was. Federal agencies would no longer be empowered to write our laws.
If Congress were put in charge, environmental rules intended to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy would be stalled. Climate change would be debated by legislators publicly and the actual cost of proposed regulations would be revealed.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of West Virginia, it will save the coal industry. Westmoreland Mining Holdings, North American Coal Corporation, and others will win a huge victory and it will be a death knell for Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda.
Democrats have buried the actual costs of abandoning oil and gas in favor of their green agenda. Once consumers see what wind and solar power actually cost, they are likely to balk at the whole inane concept that Biden calls the “Great Transition.”
The ruling would not only affect environmental regulations, it would severely smack the hands of federal agencies when making decisions. The mess engendered by alphabet agencies started in the 1930s with President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. That created a whopping 69 offices and executive branch agencies that have since meddled in every aspect of Americans’ lives.
Taking the power away from those agencies and returning it to the states would streamline politics so that things would get done on a local level rather than bogged down at the federal one.
Agencies such as the FDA, CDC, and a whole raft of other bureaucracies could find themselves not only severely limited in scope and power, but the subject of numerous lawsuits such as ones that challenge labor laws, consumer protection mandates, and edicts by the EPA.
Before his untimely death, the legendary originalist Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a decision, “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.'”
Conservative justices on the court today appear to be in agreement with that sentiment.
This refers to what is known as the The Major Questions Doctrine — the premise that if Congress intended agencies to make sweeping, economywide changes with their regulations, the relevant legislation must say so specifically and clearly.
Quote:Agencies such as the FDA, CDC, and a whole raft of other bureaucracies could find themselves not only severely limited in scope and power, but the subject of numerous lawsuits such as ones that challenge labor laws, consumer protection mandates, and edicts by the EPA.
Before his untimely death, the legendary originalist Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a decision, “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.'”
#jurisSlamFk'nDunked
@isWhyFk'emAll
it's time to find out how shriveled their cods really are...
Back then it was the EPA that wasn't wanting to issue standards, interestingly.
Quote:EDS | EDS Cases in the Supreme Court
In this case, the Supreme Court found that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. In section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, Congress stated that EPA is to issue standards applicable to the emission of
“air pollutants” from new motor vehicles, which in EPA’s “judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare . . . .”
In 1999, private organizations filed a petition requesting that EPA issue rules to begin regulating four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, emitted from new motor vehicles. After taking extensive public comment, EPA denied the petition, stating that:
1. it did not have authority under the Clean Air Act to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change because Congress would have explicitly directed EPA to do so if Congress so intended. As a result, greenhouse gases could not be considered “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act.
2. even if it did have authority, it would be unwise to set greenhouse gas emission standards at this time because:
- there was uncertainty regarding the link between greenhouse gases and global warming; - still is
- mandatory regulation was a piecemeal approach that would interfere with the President’s more comprehensive approach; and - another horseshite argument that exceeds E(IEI)O powers
- it might hamper the President’s ability to persuade developing countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions. - this is why WV should win - ain't no "might" to it...
A panel of the D.C. Circuit denied petitions for review of EPA’s action in a fractured decision. A number of states, local governments, and environmental organizations sought further review in the Supreme Court. The Court first held that Massachusetts had standing to seek review of EPA’s denial of the rulemaking petition in light of the harms global warming could cause that State, including submersion of State-owned property on the coast due to increase in ocean levels.
The Court then held that under the language of the Clean Air Act, EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases as “air pollutants.” The Court reversed EPA’s denial of the petition, finding that EPA hadn’t given a reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change. The Court remanded the matter to EPA, but expressly didn’t reach the question of whether EPA must make a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare, or whether policy concerns may inform EPA’s actions in the event that it makes such a finding.
#openEnded and why WV v. EPA ... it's the crux behind defining "responsibility"...
Quote:At a National Press Club event previewing the SCOTUS EPA case earlier this year, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey challenged Edison Electric Institute’s position that the case could undermine the EPA beyond the scope of coal power case.
“This once again is about who gets to make the decision. It’s Congress. There’s no secret agenda, if you will. Let’s be particular, this is about who makes the decision. And so we know that everyone has different economic incentives as to why they make their decisions,” said Morrisey.
“We’re talking about the wrestling match between the legislative branch of our federal government and the executive branch of our federal government, and how we have that balance of power between the two. People shouldn’t read into it, [that we’re] talking about the merits of climate change,” he said.
Kevin Minoli, a partner in Alston & Bird’s environment, land use & natural resource group and former senior official in EPA’s Office of General Counsel, said earlier this year that “the petitioners were clear — this case is not just about the EPA’s regulation of carbon emissions; the case is also about the federal government’s ability to regulate anything of significance in the absence of clear direction from Congress to do so.”
“While it is clear from the oral argument that the petitioners want the Supreme Court to adopt the ‘major question doctrine’ as a check on administrative regulation, what was much less clear after the petitioners finished their arguments were the questions of what would constitute a ‘major question’ and how courts would recognize one when it is before them,” he said.
When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives. In our Republic, “t is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the government of society.” [i]Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810). Because today’s decision helps safeguard that foundational constitutional promise, I am pleased to concur.
![[Image: BruisedPerkyGlobefish-max-1mb.gif]](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BruisedPerkyGlobefish-max-1mb.gif)
RE: West Va. v. EPA (alphabet soup lines) ![[Image: tenor.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/images/4b0d38c652d0a5d9171f01ea75118daa/tenor.gif)