EPA Loses In 6-3 SCOTUS Decision

[ding]

Correct.

Meaning, they do not dictate every policy and list their policies to only those policies.

It's pretty much every regulatory board in the government.
. The worry now is that Roberts's hamhanded, poorly delineated decision could be used to strike down just about any regulation.

It could have taken one. Even less, as that wasn't really the courts decision. The decision was essentially that regulatory boards have no right to form policies not legislated by congress. Once again, decades of reaffirmed precedence are tossed by a corrupt court.

Usually when someone says they are authorized to do something they can point to a specific authorizing statement. Sounds to me that even you know they weren't authorized to regulate CO2 because you can't point to any statement for that authority, broad or otherwise.

 

[ding]

Unauthorized overreach is a liberal darling. We experienced a lot of it during the overreactive Covid hoax.

I'm getting a lot of arm waving but not anything that could be construed as explicit authority to regulate CO2 emissions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Usually when someone says they are authorized to do something they can point to a specific authorizing statement.

Maybe in the fantasies you are making up on the spot to be contrarian.

But in what we call "reality", every regulatory board has been given latitude to update their policies without always needing a law to be passed that details them.
See: any agency

As affirmed by precedence in the scotus.

Until today.

 

[ding]

Maybe in the fantasies you are making up on the spot to be contrarian.

But in what we call "reality", every regulatory board has been given latitude to update their policies without always needing a law to be passed that details them.
See: any agency

As affirmed by precedence in the scotus.

Until today.

Absent an authorizing statement to regulate CO2 emissions from Congress, there is no authority to regulate CO2.

So just get Congress to authorize the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. Problem solved.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Absent an authorizing statement to regulate CO2 emissions from Congress, there is no authority to regulate CO2.

Yes, thank you for restating a narrow version of the court's decision given in the OP and discussed for 9 pages in this thread. That's some fine intellectual work, there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So...
What needs to happen is congress has to go to work and hammer out a deal for the coal fired electrical generating plants to get scrubbers for their smokestacks.

We want the mercury and soot removed...it's not difficult but it is kinda expensive.
Mercury gets in the waterways to where a guy can't eat the fish he catches. The mercury coming from the coal itself.

So if congress will help fund some of the scrubbers....then we will have plenty of power.

Forget about it. They won't be happy until we get every ounce of energy from windmills and solar. Fracking drastically cut down CO2. Think they were happy about it? No, they bitch about fracking more than anything.

 

[Rogue AI]

Remain in Mexico was an EO. Yes they can die with the next administration. EO's are the same issue we have here. Presidents too lazy to actually do the work to get something passed.

Unless it's a decree from Obama, like DACA. Odd how that works.

 

[ding]

Yes, thank you for restating a narrow version of the court's decision given in the OP and discussed for 9 pages in this thread. That's some fine intellectual work, there.

It's certainly more than you have done. Just get Congress to authorize the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. Problem solved.

 

[pknopp]

Unless it's a decree from Obama, like DACA. Odd how that works.

Already addressed. Please read further.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's certainly more than you have done.

Besides spoonfeeding your lazy ass parts of the dissenting opinion, to quell your begging. Besides correcting your ignorance on precedence and the ramifications of this ruling.

What else am I supposed to do? Powder your ass and put you to bed?

 

[ding]

Besides spoonfeeding your lazy ass parts of the dissenting opinion, to quell your begging. Besides correcting your ignorance on precedence and the ramifications of this ruling.

What else am I supposed to do? Powder your ass and put you to bed?

I wouldn't call asking you to state the basis of your beliefs... spoon feeding.

 

[ding]

What else am I supposed to do?

Ummmm..... point to the specific language that you believe Congress authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions to save the planet from global warming?

 

[ding]

Besides correcting your ignorance on precedence and the ramifications of this ruling.

Ramifications? What ramifications are those?

 

[WEATHER53]

I'm getting a lot of arm waving but not anything that could be construed as explicit authority to regulate CO2 emissions.

That is because you want a fact provided from a liberal

 

[ding]

That is because you want a fact provided from a liberal

His problem is the clean air act has nothing to do with the climate. It's about pollution. The EPA needs a congressional act on climate to regulate CO2 emissions.

 

[Rambunctious]

No longer will a rain puddle in your driveway be a wetland.....

 

[Calypso Jones]

You are LYING

And I’m not sure what species of vermin you are…

calling your opposition vermin...exactly how the nazis did it in WWII.

 

[Calypso Jones]

It was not 5-4 or 6-3. It was 9-0. All justices agreed that the epa had gone too far. The only thing they disagreed on was where to draw the line.

 

[jc456]

You are LYING

And I’m not sure what species of vermin you are…

why can't you just accept others may have an opposing viewpoint? Is that the new path of demfks, tell everyone who disagrees with you names?

You have a lot of class huh? not!

 

[Calypso Jones]

why can't you just accept others may have an opposing viewpoint? Is that the new path of demfks, tell everyone who disagrees with you names?

You have a lot of class huh? not!

because they have no good rebuttal argument. It always resorts to name calling.