Supreme Court to hear case that could limit EPA efforts on climate change

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
70,671
50,182
113
Unconscionable:

The Supreme Court is hearing a case its conservative majority could use to hobble Biden administration efforts to combat climate change.

The administration already is dealing with congressional refusal to enact the climate change proposals in President Joe Biden’s Build Better Back plan.

ADVERTISING


Now the justices, in arguments Monday, are taking up an appeal from 19 mostly Republican-led states and coal companies over the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

The court took on the case even though there is no current EPA plan in place to deal with carbon output from power plants, a development that has alarmed environmental groups. They worry that the court could preemptively undermine whatever plan Biden’s team develops to address power plant emissions. Biden has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade.

A broad ruling by the court also could weaken regulatory efforts that extend well beyond the environment, including consumer protections, workplace safety and public health. Several conservative justices have criticized what they see as the unchecked power of federal agencies.

Those concerns were evident in the court’s orders throwing out two Biden administration policies aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19. Last summer, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority ended a pause on evictions over unpaid rent. In January, the same six justices blocked a requirement that workers at large employers be vaccinated or test regularly and wear a mask on the job.

Paid Post​

What Is This?

These powerful German hearing aids are hard to beat. See why

These powerful German hearing aids are hard to beat. See why
The #1 hearing aids featuring German technology and enhanced speech clarity. Slots now available!
See More
Sponsored Content by Hear.com

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrissey, speaking at a recent event in Washington, cast the power plant case as about who should make the rules. “Should it be unelected bureaucrats, or should it be the people’s representatives in Congress?” Morrisey said. West Virginia is leading the states opposed to broad EPA authority.

But David Doniger, a climate change expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the Supreme Court’s consideration of the issue is premature, a view shared by the administration.

He said the administration’s opponents are advancing “horror stories about extreme regulations the EPA may issue in the future. The EPA is writing a new rule on a clean slate.”

The power plant case has a long and complicated history that begins with the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. That plan would have required states to reduce emissions from the generation of electricity, mainly by shifting away from coal-fired plants.

But that plan never took effect. Acting in a lawsuit filed by West Virginia and others, the Supreme Court blocked it in 2016 by a 5-4 vote, with conservatives in the majority.



With the plan on hold, the legal fight over it continued. But after President Donald Trump took office, the EPA repealed the Obama-era plan. The agency argued that its authority to reduce carbon emissions was limited and it devised a new plan that sharply reduced the federal government’s role in the issue.

New York, 21 other mainly Democratic states, the District of Columbia and some of the nation’s largest cities sued over the Trump plan. The federal appeals court in Washington ruled against both the repeal and the new plan, and its decision left nothing in effect while the new administration drafted a new policy.

Adding to the unusual nature of the high court’s involvement, the reductions sought in the Obama plan by 2030 already have been achieved through the market-driven closure of hundreds of coal plants.

The Biden administration has no intention of reviving the Clean Power Plan, one reason Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, argues the court should dismiss the case.

Some of the nation’s largest electric utilities, serving 40 million people, are supporting the Biden administration along with prominent businesses that include Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Tesla.

A decision is expected by late June.

 

Huey Grey

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2013
47,688
67,575
113
It continues to baffle me why Rs keep rejecting climate change. I mean I get that they are propped up by big oil and coal, but good god, this is ridiculous cronyism.
 

IAHawk2011

HR All-American
Mar 18, 2010
3,804
8,188
113
This case isn’t about climate change, it is about administrative authority. This will be a 6-3 opinion written by Gorsuch that sets forth some new judicially-created rule (i.e. judicial activism) that severely limits the regulatory power of administrative agencies.

I imagine we’ll also get a concurrence from Roberts that tries to walk back some of Gorsuch’s more extreme rhetoric to make it look like the Court isn’t being run by a bunch of partisan right-wingers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

joelbc1

HR King
Gold Member
Sep 5, 2007
72,113
36,960
113
you can’t always get what you want!
Now, if this was done by the Court “for” increasing regulatory powers, you would decry the Court was “ legislating from the bench”…..however, since the Court is going to rule as you see fit, what will you call it? Brilliant?
 

Titus Andronicus

HR Legend
Gold Member
Sep 26, 2002
11,696
2,887
113
75
Las Vegas, NV
I keep warning about the dangers of bureaucrats creating laws without guidance from anyone other than from fellow bureaucrats.

In this instance, they have been attempting to close power plants based on their own misguided belief in climate change. There is no way this should be legal without the support of an underlying statute to back them up.

Beware the Deep State.

.................................................

Incidentally, this case went through Biden Nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's court (the one where she currently sits) and she upheld the power of the bureaucrats. This was later overturned by a higher court.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: cigaretteman

mthawkeyes

HR Heisman
Mar 22, 2007
6,893
11,559
113
Fourmile Creek
I will cut to the chase. Corporatist supreme court, bulwark against socialism, rules that super-human corporations have the right to socialize the costs of their products onto the world at large.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
70,671
50,182
113
I keep warning about the dangers of bureaucrats creating laws without guidance from anyone outer than from fellow bureaucrats.

In this instance, they have been attempting to close power plants based on their own misguided belief in climate change. There is no way this should be legal without the support of an underlying statute to back them up.

Beware the Deep State.

.................................................

Incidentally, this case went through Biden Nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's court (the one where she currently sits) and she upheld the power of the bureaucrats. This was later overturned by a higher court.
DEEP STATE LOL. Whenever anyone seriously uses that term you know that they have no idea what they're talking about.
 

pablow

HR Legend
Gold Member
Mar 14, 2010
16,598
20,139
113
Fans of Democracy should applaud court decisions limiting the authority of unelected bureaucrats to make watershed policy decisions. These decisions should be made by our elected representatives in Congress. That fact that Congress won't act means the votes aren't there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Titus Andronicus

mthawkeyes

HR Heisman
Mar 22, 2007
6,893
11,559
113
Fourmile Creek
Fans of Democracy should applaud court decisions limiting the authority of unelected bureaucrats to make watershed policy decisions. These decisions should be made by our elected representatives in Congress. That fact that Congress won't act means the votes aren't there.
Instead, we should allow unelected corporations to pour money into our political system so they can pull the strings of the people who are supposed to regulate them.
 

Huey Grey

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2013
47,688
67,575
113
Fans of Democracy should applaud court decisions limiting the authority of unelected bureaucrats to make watershed policy decisions. These decisions should be made by our elected representatives in Congress. That fact that Congress won't act means the votes aren't there.
The military would not exist under your theory.
 

Latest posts