High court’s blow to EPA rattles Democrats, climate change activists

[HARK!]

The Supreme Court ruling Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change was a win for conservatives who have long sought to shrink the “administrative state,” a power federal agencies wield over large swaths of the U.S. economy and everyday life.

The ruling put the brakes on President Biden’s climate agenda by shifting the rule-making power back to Congress, where most climate change policy has stalled.

High court’s blow to EPA rattles Democrats, climate change activists

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Woot! They got another ruling or two before they go on Summer Vacation right?

 

[durangodawood]

Woot! They got another ruling or two before they go on Summer Vacation right?

Its gonna be a hot one!

 

[HARK!]

Woot! They got another ruling or two before they go on Summer Vacation right?

The ruling came out on another one; and I think that they dropped one.

I think that they're done.

 

[rjs330]

From the article.

The court has placed its thumb on the scales — an anti-regulatory thumb — that’s going to make it much more difficult for agencies to regulate,” Robert Glicksman, an environmental law professor at George Washington University, said in an interview before the ruling.

Well hoorah hoorah! We have been needing this for a long time.

Yes it has been far too easy for government agencies to regulate things. Congress has far too long turned over it's authority to unelected bureaucratic agencies to do things they were unwilling or unable to get done.

I've got no problem with the EPA as an agency to make sure the regulatory laws passed by Congress are enforced. But they should be held in STRICT boundaries as to their actual power. These agencies have run rampant for far too long and congress has allowed them too. That goes for the republicans as well as the Democrats.

 

[Yttrium]

As much as global warming is getting worse, it's still congress that makes the laws. That limits what the prez is capable of accomplishing. He needs to advertise heavily and hit the campaign trails hard to push his global warming agenda if he wants to make a difference.

 

[HARK!]

From the article.

The court has placed its thumb on the scales — an anti-regulatory thumb — that’s going to make it much more difficult for agencies to regulate,” Robert Glicksman, an environmental law professor at George Washington University, said in an interview before the ruling.

Well hoorah hoorah! We have been needing this for a long time.

Yes it has been far too easy for government agencies to regulate things. Congress has far too long turned over it's authority to unelected bureaucratic agencies to do things they were unwilling or unable to get done.

I've got no problem with the EPA as an agency to make sure the regulatory laws passed by Congress are enforced. But they should be held in STRICT boundaries as to their actual power. These agencies have run rampant for far too long and congress has allowed them too. That goes for the republicans as well as the Democrats.

Here's how I understand it: Our politicians write laws, and then turn them over to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who write the regulations. It's the regulations that will prompt the bureaucrats to come kicking down your door.

 

[Pommer]

Here's how I understand it: Our politicians write laws, and then turn them over to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who write the regulations. It's the regulations that will prompt the bureaucrats to come kicking down your door.

What, then, is the alternative?
Congress having to write out each area where a Federal Agency has jurisdiction?
Louie Gohmert and AOC voting on which polychloral-biphenyls are acceptable in drinking water? And in what amounts?
Charming.

 

[HARK!]

What, then, is the alternative?
Congress having to write out each area where a Federal Agency has jurisdiction?
Louie Gohmert and AOC voting on which polychloral-biphenyls are acceptable in drinking water? And in what amounts?
Charming.

Where does the Constitution give our elected officials the power to shirk their duty, and to pass their responsibility off to some bureaucrat to make laws as he goes along?

 

[Pommer]

Where does the Constitution give our elected officials the power to shirk their duty, and to pass their responsibility off to some bureaucrat to make laws as he goes along?

You want politicians voting on highly detailed and technical things?
Maybe 535 aren’t nearly enough?

 

[HARK!]

You want politicians voting on highly detailed and technical things?
Maybe 535 aren’t nearly enough?

Do you want politicians voting on subjects that they are uninformed of? They should be presented with the facts; and then make a decision, that complies with their few and enumerated powers.

 

[Tanj]

Fascinating ruling. Should ensure the SCOTUS dance card is full for the next 10 years on top of any other business it might have.

 

[Pommer]

Do you want politicians voting on subjects that they are uninformed of? They should be presented with the facts; and then make a decision, that complies with their few and enumerated powers.

That’s going to speed things up?

Do you know how ponderous and lethargic government is now?
How much slower will things be to hold hearings, debates and votes on things better left to those people who spent their careers studying and acting in a given field rather than attention seeking office holders?

But that’s where this it headed, please enjoy dismantling the Administrative state.

 

[HARK!]

That’s going to speed things up?

Do you know how ponderous and lethargic government is now?
How much slower will things be to hold hearings, debates and votes on things better left to those people who spent their careers studying and acting in a given field rather than attention seeking office holders?

But that’s where this it headed, please enjoy dismantling the Administrative state.

If pro is good; and con is bad; and progress means to move forward; what does congress mean?

"The best government is that which governs least. No human depositories can, with safety, be trusted with the power of legislation upon the general interests of society so as to operate directly or indirectly on the industry and property of the community. Such power must be perpetually liable to the most pernicious abuse, from the natural imperfection, both in wisdom of judgment and purity of purpose, of all human legislation, exposed constantly to the pressure of partial interests; interests which, at the same time that they are essentially selfish and tyrannical, are ever vigilant, persevering, and subtle in all the arts of deception and corruption." ~Henry David Thoreau

 

[sfs]

Well hoorah hoorah! We have been needing this for a long time.

Absolutely. Humans aren't destroying the planet quite as fast as they could be, so anything that speeds that up is a real plus.

 

[Pommer]

Absolutely. Humans aren't destroying the planet quite as fast as they could be, so anything that speeds that up is a real plus.

Yeah, well, Revelation 21:1 gives them an “out”, (it could be “sinful” if we don’t use up this present Earth, as much as possible?)

 

[Tanj]

Absolutely. Humans aren't destroying the planet quite as fast as they could be, so anything that speeds that up is a real plus.

Think outside the EPA box sfs. SCOTUS made a decision based on the "major questions doctrine", which is to say carbon caps and such are so important congress should decide them, not federal regulators.

How long before the pharma lobby wades in and says that this whole silly FDA "clinical trial" system and adverse event reporting are onerous overreach by federal regulators directly preventing Americans accessing life saving care, and that congress should instead vote on them....a congress which is obviously in no way in the pockets of the pharma lobby.

 

[rjs330]

You want politicians voting on highly detailed and technical things?
Maybe 535 aren’t nearly enough?

Yes we do. The experts can come in, present a case and congress can pass a law.

 

[Job 33:6]

I view climate regulations as something that should be similar to RCRA. RCRA was passed for liquid and solid waste generated by manufacturers. Gaseous waste really shouldn't be any different.

And RCRA has been a massive success in the US. So I don't really see why the CAA and waste emissions that are gaseous should be viewed in any different light.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So what would be the scope and job of the EPA then if not being able act as and Agency that set regulatory guidelines for "Environmental Protection"?


That'd be like a ruling saying that the DEA doesn't have the authority to set policy for Drug Enforcement.

And I don't necessarily see why it's considered a win to take the oversight of a highly technical scientific topic away from technicians and scientists, and "put the power in the hands of congress" (a group that isn't necessarily comprised of technical and scientific minds...especially not in that field)

Is this GOP effort to neuter the EPA just petty retaliation for the Democrats trying to neuter ICE?