Supreme Court deals Biden climate agenda serious blow with EPA decision

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...iden-climate-agenda-serious-blow-epa-decision

HYPERLINK has full article

snip

"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,’" Chief Justice John Roberts said in the Court's opinion. "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."

end snip


what bothers me is that 3 justices felt that the mandates need not be laws passed by Congress.

The Constitution died

 

Ah yes, “pro-life” but let’s destroy the environment in the name of money.

I am glad this court has identified precedent means so little, their rulings will be easily overturned.

Imagine supporting the legislative branch conspiring with the executive branch to force an agenda through and then believing you are not evil.

 

So this decision is "the regulatory agencies can set rules, as long as those rules don't cost too much money" ?

YES, the constitution died if the decision is predicated on the amount of change.....

 

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Congress never authorized the regulation of CO2 or other greenhouse gases in the CAA. Once again, this decision is right down the Constitutional middle where it's supposed to be.

 

As I said, the RW Supreme Court is on a roll legislating RW extremist ideology from the bench. Strike three... Who needs to worry about the environment anyway when money can be made?

Now, it is interesting that Roberts voted with the majority. it crystallizes more and more that Roberts is a moderate/centrist on social issues, but on economic issues, he is mostly a staunch conservative. After all, he was the one voting with the majority to give us Citizens United, i.e. unlimited money flow into politics.

 

For once I agree with Representative for Life Roberts:

Climate Commies can go to Congress and put their transformational schemes to a vote.

They're all for democracy, right?

 

But his decision was predicated on "such magnitude and consequence". So where in the constitution does it say "only small decisions" ?

If you have the right to make a regulatory decision, where in the constitution does the word "magnitude" exist ? If you have the right to make a small decision, why dont you have the right to make a big decision on the same thing ?

 

I love it. Blow by blow, the SC is making biden and his cronies look like absolute morons.

 

Here's what West Virginia said (from the article cited in the OP:

I'm just finding out about this, so I haven't had time to explore this "major questions doctrine" thingy yet.

At first glance, this does appear to be a victory for democracy. If Dems want to fundamentally transform our economy and everything connected to it, they should put it to a vote.

After all, Dems are all for democracy, right?

Or were they lying.....again......

 

It's pretty simple really. Old "Schoolhouse Rock" stuff. Congress legislates, Executive executes, Supreme Court judges. I even understood that at 10 years old.

Now, since CO2 and other greenhouse gases are not specified in the Clean Air Act, EPA can't regulate them. Period.

Roberts was simply correcting the hideous decision in EPA v. Massachusetts (2007) that allowed EPA to regulate things that are not, under any rational definition, pollutants.

Now if the Marxists want to try again, they can take a shot at amending the CAA but Congress has become pretty much dysfunctional since they abandoned legislating for protecting long, profitable careers by simply funding Executive branch agencies to do the dirty work for them starting in the '60s.

Geez, I love this Supreme Court. Donald Trump should be enshrined on Mount Rushmore for this alone.

 

Wow. Progressives really hate democracy, don’t they?

 

It would seem they were all for democracy before they were against it......but really they weren't.

Now, let's all throw a Pity Party for the poor Carbon Commies who are being forced to let the hoi polloi have a say in their own lives.

Boo-hoo, muh power and control!

 

Im not debating the magnitude of the change, just how the SC is interpreting it. I just dont understand how a law (related to its constitutionality) is different if the change costs $200, then if the change costs $2000?

 

Then you didn't read Roberts opinion. He claimed that the "Magnitude" of the change was the reason for the decision.

 

Oh come on, the constitution is very damn clear. We elect congress and the president, it's their job to make regulatory law. Right now the regulatory law changes every 4-8 years based on who's the president, it's futile and the same reason Trump's EO, remain in Mexico, was struck down in Biden's favor. You don't get to write law because you're a President period. We elect congress to write law and they are judged by the vote of the people. It's past time they get off their ass and do their job.

 

They have a right to make rules within the scope of the laws written, it's the back and forth every time the Presidency is changed, that is not sustainable when requiring massive changes. The issue is soley on this lazy ass congress, they haven't done their job in a long time and it's past time they do.

 

I have to assume that the law was specifically written that way (?), but I'm seeing talk of this "major questions doctrine" thing, and doctrines generally aren't so clearly defined. I guess it's "established" on precedent???

 

Speaking of doing their job, when's the last time we had a freakin' budget in this country?

If I had my way, there would be a law where we don't have to pay our taxes unless an actual budget has been signed into law, but like a Balanced Budget Amendment we know that will never happen....

 

Sure. If you're just correcting some misspelled words in the legislation, the changes could probably stand.

But EPA tried to regulate something that isn't a pollutant. Yeah, the magnitude is right. You say potato.....

Either way this stands to invalidate a lot of stupid Deep State crap going all the way back to FDR's New Deal.

And no, I don't need to read the ruling. I've been up to my eyes in it professionally for a couple decades.

 

So you agree they should eliminate the filibuster then?
Because that is why neither party can accomplish anything

While we are at it we need to eliminate fptp so we can get some parties that actually represent the people instead of the conservatives (d) and the regressives (r)

 

Well when folks think energy comes from fairies this is what your see As for the coal plant we have here ALL of the power it produces goes to the west coast, Washington! They had the emission standards so ridiculous that it was slated to downsize/shut down or revamp to NG, very expensive to do, and very costly to the consumer "Long run".

So in all your vast energy replacement logic where was Washington and parts of Idaho going to get there power SIX MONTHS AGO when the plant didn't meet ByDummies requirements

 

Two weeks ago all I heard was “we must save our democracy “. Now we have a chance to address more issues through democracy. They are like “oh crap—democracy might mean we don’t get what we want. Hard pass. “

I’m expecting progressives to start advocating for a monarchy or politburo.

 

You see the constitution is a funny thing, it doesn't get changed unless both sides agree to a compromise, this was set up so our country wasn't changing with each wind direction. Today the crazy Eo's blow the wind in a different direction every time a President is elected and Congress has taken advantage of it. Today all congress does is divide to keep their voter base electing them and nothing gets done. Environmental policy, nah we don't want to comprise so just make companies invest in things that may change in 4 years when a new president comes in. Immigration nah let's not deal with that we'll just let it flip flop every few years.

As far as the filibuster in my opinion eliminating it would be as dumb as Harry Reed and the dems introducing the nuclear option. That was soley because the left wanted nonmainstream federal judges confirmed, Look what that did, it allowed Trump the ability to put three judges, that few dems wanted, on the supreme court. It allowed the senate to dig in without compromise. The constitution is brilliant in the sense that it understood politicians by nature are partisan and the people in the country tend to be more middle, so it forced compromise among the partisans. Anything, that destroys that, like ending the filibuster and nuclear option, is a horrible idea for the people of this country.

 

Irony with the Democratic left. The left was for protecting the filibuster before they were for removing the filibuster... Brilliant!



And then when the midterms come and Democrats lose both houses and Republics gain what is looking like a super majority, the Dem's will be sulking to why they removed the filibuster.... It's literally comic relief!

 

The Clean Air Act was passed in about 1972. From the beginning it only envisioned 6 real pollutants- CO, NOx, HC, PM (particulate matter- rolling coal so to speak), SO4, and another that I've forgotten right now (I've spent my career in automotive where only the first 4 really matter). It's been amended a few times along the way but that's pretty much the constant summary of it.

You'll note that CO2 has never been a regulated pollutant before 2007. That's because CO2 is one of the desired exhaust gases post-combustion. The other is H2O. All combustion from engines to camp fires to gas stoves produce CO2 and H2O under perfect conditions. They only produce very small amounts of real pollutants because it's very difficult to control the conditions surrounding the combustion to keep it perfect. For instance in an operating engine the volume, pressures, and temperatures in the cylinder are constantly changing very rapidly (a V8 engine running at 2500 rpms is having 4 combustion events every revolution of the crankshaft) and NOx is produced in the cylinder in the very high temperatures of peak compression. As the cylinder moves past Top Dead Center, pressures and temperatures fall rapidly and NOx is then locked into that state before it finishes full combustion. That's why exhaust aftertreatment (catalytic converters, diesel particulate filters, selective catalytic reduction (SCR), EGR, fuel injection, etc.) are in all modern vehicles.

However, simply operating a diesel engine for instance produces about 19.5 pounds of carbon dioxide (my memories a little fuzzy on the specific number but it should be easy to look up). There you go- burn fuel get CO2 and water all day long every day.

In 2007 the Supreme Court ruled (well, not really ruled but that's way too complicated to matter here) that CO2 could be a pollutant and be regulated by EPA (EPA v. Massachusetts). That's when the current EV chaos started to really ramp up and fleet mpg requirements sky rocketed.

What the SC did today was simply say that Congress never authorized CO2 as a pollutant (trying to pass a bill to mandate the physically impossible would have been worth all the buttered popcorn in the world).

In the end, it is just that simple.