ADVERTISEMENT

SCOTUS missteps continue with gutting EPA

tom-toles-climate-change-debate-compromise.jpg
Touche
 
That sounds very Gary Larson-esque.

But seriously though - if we want to get something done, we need to compromise. If we need to compromise, we need to appreciate perspective. If we need to appreciate perspective, we need to educate and be educated. If we need to educate and be educated, we need and we need to be a receptive audience. If we need a receptive audience, we need to not turn them off with alarmism. Not matter what the marketers say. I fight this battle every day in my (legal) profession, where as you might imagine, "fear-based marketing" is sort of a thing.
Seen a few compliance presentations, have you? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aardvark86
I'm at least pleased that you corrected your history.

If this sort of quote is a little more your speed, consider "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark side."
Yeah, I was looking for the right meme for you with someone saying "Acksually....it's a republic..." and the quote came up wrong in a Forbes article. Go figure.

bUt Me tOo dUmB fOr tHaT qUoTe tO..mE nEeD bRiLliAnT lAwYeR tO eXpLaIn....
 
Yeah, I was looking for the right meme for you with someone saying "Acksually....it's a republic..." and the quote came up wrong in a Forbes article. Go figure.

bUt Me tOo dUmB fOr tHaT qUoTe tO..mE nEeD bRiLliAnT lAwYeR tO eXpLaIn....
I do appreciate the effort though.
 
Have you even read the posts in this thread? There is no way congress can pass a law that is comprehensive enough to meet every issue that comes up and rules to apply it in every situation.

Congress passes a law that says the epa regulates harmful chemicals released in the environment. There’s no way congress can make a specific list. It charges the epa to develop rules. Perhaps some administrations writs rules to slant towards industry. Others write rules to the environment. That’s why we have elections.

This court has said, nope, we don’t like that rule it’s out.
If the EPA can make a specific list, why is Congress unable to include such a list in a statute?
 
Would you prefer Congress, which is an elected body, make laws, or that executive agencies, which aren't accountable, make laws. The Constitution is clear the Legislature make laws. This case is specific in how the EPA exceeded its authority. Yes, there's a broader question, but there's nothing wrong with saying that agencies must operate within laws Congress passes.
And the authority to correct the wayward executive branch from abusing its delegates authority is in the legislature and not SCOTUS
 
We all know you are beyond stupid.

But do you really want congress, a body of 500 people, micromanaging every decision and regulation there could possibly be. Do you understand how stupid that idea is?
No I like it. It will require compromise and commitment.
 
In the end, it seems like most of the rest of the world has made up their mind on global warming. We will just lose the head seat at the table and when things get bad, the US will have to walk it back with our tail between our legs.
 
That house I saw advertised in Scotland is looking better by the day
 
If the EPA can make a specific list, why is Congress unable to include such a list in a statute?
Fair enough. Could the epa then regulate a chemical that is deadly, but wasnt known until after the law passed? Would a company be able to emit that chemical without oversite until Congress acted? Do you see the issue here? Congress simply cannot act fast enough.
 
Fair enough. Could the epa then regulate a chemical that is deadly, but wasnt known until after the law passed? Would a company be able to emit that chemical without oversite until Congress acted? Do you see the issue here? Congress simply cannot act fast enough.
To be clear this case is not requiring congress to make every detailed choice.
 
In the end, it seems like most of the rest of the world has made up their mind on global warming. We will just lose the head seat at the table and when things get bad, the US will have to walk it back with our tail between our legs.
It's that and it's much worse than that.

Without US leadership - and especially if the US obstructs necessary action and promotes fossil energy exploitation - we won't just lose our seat at the head of the table, we will be complicit in disasters across the globe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Sadly, it's beginning to look like my hero will turn out to be wrong. Thanks to the GOP and this Taliban Court.

"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works." -- Stephen Hawking
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
In the end, it seems like most of the rest of the world has made up their mind on global warming. We will just lose the head seat at the table and when things get bad, the US will have to walk it back with our tail between our legs.
You are aware much of Europe is walking back many of their prior global warming commitments? Germany is reopening coal power plants and others are slowing or stopping their prior moves as a result of seeing what happened with Russia. China and India have always flipped the world the bird regarding GW.

As Mike Tyson said "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth."
 
You are aware much of Europe is walking back many of their prior global warming commitments?
You realize they are now recognizing, that fulfilling those commitments with renewable energy would have avoided their energy crisis now, right?

Once you no longer rely on Russia and Saudi Arabia for energy, you don't need to give them lots of money to create problems like this.
 
You realize they are now recognizing, that fulfilling those commitments with renewable energy would have avoided their energy crisis now, right?

Once you no longer rely on Russia and Saudi Arabia for energy, you don't need to give them lots of money to create problems like this.
Except there is that prickly thing called reality. In 2022 and for the foreseeable future, wind & solar can't keep the grid moving 24 hours a day 7 days a week the way fossil fuels can. Unless and until the world develops a battery that can store huge amounts of electricity for an extensive length of time, you are fooling yourself. Unlike coal, oil, gas, etc. electricity has to be used as soon as it is produced. The worldwide grid will need to be completely redesigned as well.

A 100% clean energy future may happen, but we will need to be realistic as to when that can happen and not destroy the world economy trying to get there before the technology actually exists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
Except there is that prickly thing called reality. In 2022 and for the foreseeable future, wind & solar can't keep the grid moving 24 hours a day 7 days a week the way fossil fuels can. Unless and until the world develops a battery that can store huge amounts of electricity for an extensive length of time, you are fooling yourself. Unlike coal, oil, gas, etc. electricity has to be used as soon as it is produced. The worldwide grid will need to be completely redesigned as well.

A 100% clean energy future may happen, but we will need to be realistic as to when that can happen and not destroy the world economy trying to get there before the technology actually exists.
I can agree with almost all of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
Except there is that prickly thing called reality. In 2022 and for the foreseeable future, wind & solar can't keep the grid moving 24 hours a day 7 days a week the way fossil fuels can. Unless and until the world develops a battery that can store huge amounts of electricity for an extensive length of time, you are fooling yourself. Unlike coal, oil, gas, etc. electricity has to be used as soon as it is produced. The worldwide grid will need to be completely redesigned as well.

A 100% clean energy future may happen, but we will need to be realistic as to when that can happen and not destroy the world economy trying to get there before the technology actually exists.
Slashing the asset values for corporations like Exxon (because the oil needs to stay in the ground) will certainly punish shareholders for their decades of gambling idiocy. . . . BUT it will not "destroy the world economy."

Heck, it wouldn't even have hurt to take the medicine if we had behaved sensibly decades ago.

Whereas if we continue to let the fossil energy sector - and let's not forget that Russia is a major player in that sector - drive our environmental policies and overwhelm our environmental best interests, that chronic stupidity WILL kill millions if not billions of people, millions of species, and will make much of the world inhospitable for much of what remains of humanity and civilization.

Not alarmism, although certainly alarming. Just facts.
 
Slashing the asset values for corporations like Exxon (because the oil needs to stay in the ground) will certainly punish shareholders for their decades of gambling idiocy. . . . BUT it will not "destroy the world economy."

Heck, it wouldn't even have hurt to take the medicine if we had behaved sensibly decades ago.

Whereas if we continue to let the fossil energy sector - and let's not forget that Russia is a major player in that sector - drive our environmental policies and overwhelm our environmental best interests, that chronic stupidity WILL kill millions if not billions of people, millions of species, and will make much of the world inhospitable for much of what remains of humanity and civilization.

Not alarmism, although certainly alarming. Just facts.
I couldn't disagree with you more if I tried. You act as if the oil and gas companies will just take their medicine and eat all of their financial losses. No, they will and have passed along all of their losses to us, the people who need the oil and have to pay for it. Your campaign against big oil is silly. Again, until 100% clean energy technology actually exists and the world has had time to transition to this new generation of energy, we can't cut off our nose to spite our face. It's just reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: globalhawk
Congress gave them the authority to pass regulations. It has done this with many agencies.

Congress simply does not have the time or expertise to personally handle important federal regulations.
This is the issue. Unelected pencil pushers shouldn’t have the authority to enact regulations especially when 90% of them are democrats. This is great news. The left will now have to run on these issues to get them enacted.
 
You lost me at NPR. Liberal hive-minds. Missteps in their opinion when compared to the Constitution? I get that todays libs can't stand many aspects of the Constitution. They feel and modern, as well as intellectually and morally superior to our genius Founding Fathers.

I'm resolute that we should listen to the long dead, freedom inspired founders of this nation rather than the arrogant, self-important progs at NPR and other butt-hurt libs who are not used to losing many SCOTUS cases in recent years.
 
Yeah.
They can. With something called "infrastructure".
Yeah? Any idea what the price tag would be to go full green by the end of the year? Perhaps the greatest achievement in the history of mankind can be tackled by the Biden administration. LMAO
 
Who is advocating doing it "by the end of the year"?

Most of the actual plans are for "the coming decades". Had we started this in 2000, we'd be done by now.
The post you were quoting! Jesus, some of you guys on here need to be drug to water and have your head slammed in as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Finance85
The post you were quoting! Jesus, some of you guys on here need to be drug to water and have your head slammed in as well.
As I've said earlier in this thread, I don't have any problem with implementing policies in this regard, as long as some choices have been made by the politically accountable legislature. Which is why this headline heartened me a little, but only a little, inasmuch as I applaud Schumer's perception of the need for compromise, but just wish he'd work a little harder to cast his net a little more broadly.

 
Who is advocating doing it "by the end of the year"?

Most of the actual plans are for "the coming decades". Had we started this in 2000, we'd be done by now.
Ya, I forgot that the world was going to end if we didn't change immediately. How many end of the world deadlines have already passed now?;)
 
To be clear this case is not requiring congress to make every detailed choice.
Interesting discussion on NPR's On Point this morning with Christine Todd Whitman, who is what used to pass for a Republican. She and another guest counterpointed as to how fine the decisions will be. I will go with CTW. This is a gateway decision for the EPA, and a gateway decision that will endanger the work that all kinds of agencies do. FDA. OSHA. SEC. FAA. Lots of agencies with lots of experts that in some way or another Congress at one time delegated decision making to. Where is the line going to be drawn?
I don't trust politically/financially motivated people to do the right thing. The doors have been opened wide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
This is the issue. Unelected pencil pushers shouldn’t have the authority to enact regulations especially when 90% of them are democrats. This is great news. The left will now have to run on these issues to get them enacted.
You have no idea the political affiliation of the people in these agencies. What they are for the most part is experts in that field who want to make the best decisions to protect the health and welfare of the average citizen. Congress is filled with lawyers, a handful of doctors, and marginally successful businesspeople. Congress tasked the people in our agencies with making the decisions they do not have the expertise to make.
 
Remember, it's the "major questions" doctrine that's being invoked here, so personally, I continue to think the way this will settle out is in what I'll call "stay in your lane bro" types of cases. I do agree with you that this is going to show up elsewhere, but again, probably for good reason. But it'll probably not make that big a difference as you might think when the agency is acting in the nature of a "permitter" rather than establishing broad plans and policies, because at the end of the regulated party just wants their permit and will go along to get along. So things like, say, new SEC disclosure requirements on green/equity issues, or FTC merger preclearance for "socially unacceptable" but procompetitive "bigness" are areas where they're thinking of getting out of their lanes, but not ones that'll amount to much. On the other hand, this may scuttle, say, an HHS regulation to establish some nationally permissive abortion standard, given that most HHS authorities are going to be program specific.
As to the EPA, I'm not sure what everybody gets so worked up about re: details; my understanding is that Congress has routinely dabbled in the details there, and so they'll probably continue to. But the bigger point is still important -- they do need to authorize the agencies. Politics is not a dirty word, either in the context of a specific substantive topic or in the big scheme of things. And never forget, if you are going to let expert agencies go it alone without congressional consensus, you'll end up with precisely the fact scenario in this case - D elects A, R undoes A and substitutes B, D2 undoes B, etc. So nothing gets done.
 
As mentioned by others, this new Federalist powered court is being very selective in the cases it is choosing to rule on. They are being robust and aggressive, and they have a laundry list of precedents they want to overturn.
Thanks to the old bean farmer from Iowa, and Moscow Mitch, the SCOTUS is now a wholly owned subsidiary of a the Federalist Society.
 
ADVERTISEMENT