|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 30, 2022 9:39:28 GMT -5
Americans win over EPA in SCOTUS.
THe court says Biden and the EPA overstepped their powers on CO2 emissions. The legislators will have to do their jobs and make laws to control the climate which will require science they won't like on the left and be really difficult to get through. Even coal just won survival for awhile. Drill baby drill.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 30, 2022 9:44:06 GMT -5
Americans win over EPA in SCOTUS. THe court says Biden and the EPA overstepped their powers on CO2 emissions. The legislators will have to do their jobs and make laws to control the climate which will require science they won't like on the left and be really difficult to get through. Even coal just won survival for awhile. Drill baby drill. You think Dobbs drove the Marxists nuts, wait until they digest the meaning of this. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 30, 2022 11:08:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 30, 2022 11:09:59 GMT -5
Americans win over EPA in SCOTUS. THe court says Biden and the EPA overstepped their powers on CO2 emissions. The legislators will have to do their jobs and make laws to control the climate which will require science they won't like on the left and be really difficult to get through. Even coal just won survival for awhile. Drill baby drill. You think Dobbs drove the Marxists nuts, wait until they digest the meaning of this. Kind of restricts executive orders to enforcing actual laws. That should piss off Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 30, 2022 12:54:40 GMT -5
You think Dobbs drove the Marxists nuts, wait until they digest the meaning of this. Kind of restricts executive orders to enforcing actual laws. That should piss off Democrats. You have no idea how bad this will hurt them. Same principle can affect "laws" going back to the New Deal when FDR first threatened to expand the SC and put this country on it's leftist track. It's going to hurt a lot more than leaving abortion decisions to the states. I have a feeling there's some excessive alcohol intake in store for tonight. |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 30, 2022 12:56:12 GMT -5
She's got an awful funny definition of a "Constitutional crisis". |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 30, 2022 13:27:36 GMT -5
She's got an awful funny definition of a "Constitutional crisis". Well, since Democrats are by name anti-republic, therefore Constitution , yeah this will hurt but that's what we voted for, to stop them. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 30, 2022 23:12:06 GMT -5
But for some administrative arrogance on the part of some political wonks in the Obama administration, this EPA ruling/potential fiasco could have been avoided and we would be in the eighth year of a functioning energy plan.
In the early stages prior to the release of Obama's Clean Power Plan, the EPA held consultations with various energy interests, some of which my wife's workplace was involved in. After the consulting period, the EPA released a draft of its proposed clean power plan for a commenting period prior to the final iteration. I recall Charlene saying the draft plan was considered to be tough but it was a challenge North Dakota could meet; a feasible plan the energy states could accomplish and live with.
Then after all the discussions, comments, and general acceptance of the final draft, the EPA released a shock of a plan that bore little resemblance to the draft plan the energy states and the EPA had spent the previous year working on. This new EPA/Obama Clean Power plan was a complete and very unwelcome surprise to all who had been involved with its formative processes. It contained new undiscussed measures and new targets the power plant industry could not possibly meet. The Obama Clean Power plan was viewed as a backstabbing betrayal by the energy states. And they sued the EPA. And the Obama Clean Power Plan never got off the ground.
I don't know what interference occurred between the livable, pragmatic draft plan that represented a tacit agreement between the energy states and the EPA and the surprise final release of the Obama plan that prompted the "we can't possible do this" lawsuits, but there was a late and very unhelpful insertion into the process. And now, instead of being on year eight of a comprehensive, most hands on deck, energy plan, we are where we are. Rudderless.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 6:03:05 GMT -5
No epaul, you don't quite get the full scope.
Congress never gave EPA specific authority to regulate CO2. Or any other supposed greenhouse gases. None. Any EPA regulation of CO2 is now, or will be shortly, null and void. Your wife's facility no longer has the power of government mandate behind it. These ridiculous gas mileage mandates driven not by DOT as has been the case since the mid 70s, but by EPA since 2007, are toast and will need to be reset. Tesla's entire run of recent profits driven by the sale of CO2 emissions credits to gas engine manufacturers, are done. Given that and Tesla's recent plant start up problems, they may go under by year's end.
And the tentacles of this extend to all kinds of Deep State programs going back at least to FDR's New Deal.
This is the great reset.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 6:54:12 GMT -5
Prof.Richardson elaborated on the Supreme Court's majority decision in West Virginia v EPA, and other SC matters. "Today, the court’s decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency reversed almost 100 years of jurisprudence by arguing that Congress cannot delegate authority on “major questions” to agencies in the executive branch. At stake were EPA regulations that would push fossil fuel producers toward clean energy in order to combat climate change. The vote was 6 to 3, along ideological lines. That the court agreed to hear the case despite the fact that the rules being challenged had been abandoned suggested they were determined to make a point.
That point was to hamstring federal regulation of business. The argument at the heart of this decision is called the “nondelegation doctrine,” which says that Congress, which constitutes the legislative branch of the government, cannot delegate legislative authority to the executive branch. Most of the regulatory bodies in our government are housed in the executive branch. So the nondelegation doctrine would hamstring the modern regulatory state.
To avoid this extreme conclusion, the majority on the court embraced the “major questions” doctrine, which Chief Justice Roberts used today for the first time in a majority opinion.
That doctrine says that Congress must not delegate “major” issues to an agency, saying that such major issues must be explicitly authorized by Congress. But the abuse of the Senate filibuster by Republican senators means that no such laws stand a hope of passing. So the Supreme Court has essentially stopped the federal government from responding as effectively as it must to climate change. And that will have international repercussions: the inability of the U.S. government to address the crisis means that other countries will likely fall behind as well. The decision will likely apply not just to the EPA, but to a whole host of business regulations.
As recently as 2001, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the nondelegation argument in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the court must trust Congress to take care of its own power. But now it has become law."
Also discussed, "Moore v. Harper, a case about whether state legislatures alone have the power to set election rules even if their laws violate state constitutions" and "“independent state legislatures doctrine.”
"Revered conservative judge J. Michael Luttig has been trying for months to sound the alarm that this doctrine is a blueprint for Republicans to steal the 2024 election. In April, before the court agreed to take on the Moore v. Harper case, he wrote: “Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine (thus allowing state court enforcement of state constitutional limitations on legislatively enacted election rules and elector appointments) and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress' own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency.”"Better to read the whole piece and as necessary, the source articles listed at the end. heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-30-2022 |
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 7:09:35 GMT -5
Gotta love it!
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 7:28:33 GMT -5
Not everyone wants to preserve democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jul 1, 2022 7:43:44 GMT -5
Not everyone wants to preserve democracy. Well, you don't live here so the fact that you don't want to preserve democracy is pretty much irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jul 1, 2022 8:55:17 GMT -5
Well, We will be living with Trump's legacy for the rest of my time on this earth. In reality it's Mitch McConnel's legacy. The Executive Branch has been weakened. The Judicial Branch stands in opposition to the Executive. The Congressional Branch does not have the collective strength to enact much of anything. Millring should be happy.
I'm not arguing pros or cons on any of that. It's just the way it is and will be for decades to come.
The new normal.
PS- I am saddened for the state of the Union. By throwing everything back to the states, there will be a patchwork of laws and regulations that would make Lincoln cringe. This Supreme Court would possibly let slavery stand. After all it's States Rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jul 1, 2022 9:31:47 GMT -5
Well, when the hand wringing and bell ringing are done with, a certain reality will set in for both sides. The EPA's clean power plan that never went into effect and now due the Court never will has not been a factor in power generation in this country. So, nothing will change. The "rules" governing power generation, in absence of any EPA oversight, have been, and will continue to be set by the states... and most states, especially the ones that have all the people in them, have energy plans in place.
Some, like California, New York, and a few other NE states, have plans in place that are tougher than the ones EPA was proposing. And their market place muscle is huge. They affect car production and mileage standards. They even affect corn growers in the Midwest, where many states are working on plans to remove and sequester the CO2 released during ethanol production so that they can sell "green" ethanol to the California Coalition.
And as North Dakota power plants sell 60% of the energy they produce to Minnesota, if they want to continue to sell to Minnesota, they must meet Minnesota's energy laws, which right now require 25% of the electricity a plant provides to come from renewable sources with various future targets set in place. So North Dakota is putting up wind generators (and is investing in technologies that remove and sequester the CO2 released by coal plants in case Minnesota discovers renewables can't keep up with their projections and decide a little clean scrubbed coal might be a useful addition to the mix).
And unlike the EPA, the energy plans put in place by the states are put in legislatively, not by agency fiat. And unlike the Federal Government, state governments representation is determined solely by population... and most don't have filibusters (13 do, of which, only Texas has a population of consequence).
So, in a way, both recent Court rulings are same, it's now up to the states. And the states that have all the people in them are pretty green.
|
|
Tamarack
Administrator
Ancient Citizen
Posts: 9,390
|
Post by Tamarack on Jul 1, 2022 9:51:13 GMT -5
I completely agree and am completely depressed by the prospect of the nation my granddaughters will grow up in.
We will soon have the same freedoms the people have in Iran, with one-party, one-man rule. The majority of Republicans want Trump to be the Ayatollah.
|
|
|
|
Post by amanajoe on Jul 1, 2022 10:05:30 GMT -5
But the abuse of the Senate filibuster by Republican senators means that no such laws stand a hope of passing. That right there negates his whole point. Calling the republican use of filibuster abuse after the democrats used it a record 328 times during 2019 - 2020 session and used it 657 times since 2009, so half the times they used it in the last 13 years was in one year, just to block anything and everything. The lends to bias, which means, he's got a lot of work to do to prove to me that his entire argument is full of you know what. |
|
|
|
Post by amanajoe on Jul 1, 2022 10:37:02 GMT -5
PS- I am saddened for the state of the Union. By throwing everything back to the states, there will be a patchwork of laws and regulations that would make Lincoln cringe. This Supreme Court would possibly let slavery stand. After all it's States Rights. And it was back then too, which is why it was necessary to have the legislature do it's job and pass an amendment and then for that amendment to be ratified into the constitution. Saying that the emancipation proclamation abolished slavery is not correct, it goaded the legislature into acting (albeit after fighting a war, but hey, that's the way us 'muricans do things).
Everything the current supreme court is doing is technically right, even if it seems egregious or onerous. The executive branch has no power to enact laws or levy fines. You want the EPA to do that? Have congress write and pass a law for each item you want covered. You want to federally protect abortion? Make an amendment and get the states to ratify it. All of this, let's do an end around the constitution, stuff is going to get negated by the current court, so now you have to do it the right way.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Jul 1, 2022 12:03:10 GMT -5
But the abuse of the Senate filibuster by Republican senators means that no such laws stand a hope of passing. That right there negates his whole point. Calling the republican use of filibuster abuse after the democrats used it a record 328 times during 2019 - 2020 session and used it 657 times since 2009, so half the times they used it in the last 13 years was in one year, just to block anything and everything. The lends to bias, which means, he's got a lot of work to do to prove to me that his entire argument is full of you know what. Perhaps you didn't read the article/s She, not he doesn't have a single whole point and in other articles, (she writes widely and with well informed authority, she is a history Professor and author), has discussed the history and circumstances of filibuster usage and cloture by Democrats and Republicans. This article was not the one to revisit all that though and your cursory dismissal of the whole piece and all the supporting history for every one of her widely supported/shared, knowledgeable and deeply researched observations and explanations is odd. |
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,904 
|
Post by Dub on Jul 1, 2022 12:17:45 GMT -5
The real filibuster crime is that they don’t actually do it any longer. One side says “We’re going to filibuster this.” so the other side says “OK, we give up.” and that’s the end of it. They used to have to take the floor and talk for several days on end. Take the total number of filibusters over a time period and multiply by three or so to get the number of days filibusters should have used up.
|
|
