ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court rules the EPA does NOT have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emission caps in 6-3 ruling that deals a huge a blow to Biden's cli

A simple question for those on the board. Who is against Congress being the ones that make laws and regulations that effect the population of the country?
I prefer congress make the laws that effect the population.

I don't think a bureaucracy should make any kind of policy decision. They need to strictly enforce the rules they are given, and that is it. If Congress wants changes, they need to be the ones to do it.
 
I am not sure he screwed us. A president can change the policies of thier predecessor. I think he got it right.

This seems more like prioritize or pick the fight you can win.

I am kidding of course
 
“Some legal scholars worry the case could unravel much of the regulatory state - Biden's agencies are currently defending in court wetlands protections, limits on car and truck pollution and insurance coverage for birth control.”

Yes!
 
Basically the legislature can't create an executive branch office and then tell them to go forth and legislate. Seems right.
 
Basically the legislature can't create an executive branch office and then tell them to go forth and legislate. Seems right.
Is there a legal distinction between being told to “go forth and legislate” and “go forth and regulate”?
 
“Some legal scholars worry the case could unravel much of the regulatory state - Biden's agencies are currently defending in court wetlands protections, limits on car and truck pollution and insurance coverage for birth control.”

Yes!
This looks like a major blow to the deep state, or what we used to call the bloated DC buerocracy.
 
So the argument the agencies will make is they are regulating not legislating. Would that hold up in court?
Regulating does not create the rule or change a rule. Regulating is taking the rule they have and using it to make sure these companies are following the rules. It has nothing to do with creating new rules. If there needs to be a change to a rule it needs to go through Congress, who has the legislative power. The regulators are the Executive branch, which has no power to create a law or rule, only enforce. Congress will try to write a law that gives the regulator their power, but what the SCOTUS is saying is that Congress must be the one to create the law, and they cannot delegate that authority.
 
Regulating does not create the rule or change a rule. Regulating is taking the rule they have and using it to make sure these companies are following the rules. It has nothing to do with creating new rules. If there needs to be a change to a rule it needs to go through Congress, who has the legislative power. The regulators are the Executive branch, which has no power to create a law or rule, only enforce. Congress will try to write a law that gives the regulator their power, but what the SCOTUS is saying is that Congress must be the one to create the law, and they cannot delegate that authority.
How would that work in real life? Every agency has issued thousands of regulations. Would the Legislative Branch be required to issue those regulations for them? Legislators already complain they have to vote on bills that are so long they can't read them. How are they supposed to oversee the writing of and approval of regulations for each of the agencies?
 
So the argument the agencies will make is they are regulating not legislating. Would that hold up in court?
One other thing.

Congress has been giving the executive branch it's power for some time. This saves them from having to be the bad guy. It places all the decision making on the bureaucracy so they can go back home and say I didn't have anything to do with that law you are having issue with. Congress today just shows up and doesn't work, and lets the bureaucracy do all the work for them. Congress always tries to pin it on someone else when they are the responsible party.
 
How would that work in real life? Every agency has issued thousands of regulations. Would the Legislative Branch be required to issue those regulations for them? Legislators already complain they have to vote on bills that are so long they can't read them. How are they supposed to oversee the writing of and approval of regulations for each of the agencies?
The regulations that you see are adopted off the law code that is there. When congress writes a bill they are not writing a bill per se but instead they are amending the law code. If you read the bill you will see strike line x, insert line y. When the IRS is tracking your purchases, that is set by congress. When the EPA is measuring emissions levels, those levels are created by congress or are supposed to be.

Now how does that work in the real life, go look at the law code. Typically speaking those underneath agencies in the bureaucracy can not write new law when writing regulation. They can make it more restrictive on themselves, but that is about it. They can't make an emissions law more stringent on the public. However Congress has been giving away the power to change these specifics.
 
One other thing.

Congress has been giving the executive branch it's power for some time. This saves them from having to be the bad guy. It places all the decision making on the bureaucracy so they can go back home and say I didn't have anything to do with that law you are having issue with. Congress today just shows up and doesn't work, and lets the bureaucracy do all the work for them. Congress always tries to pin it on someone else when they are the responsible party.
You are asking some very pertinent questions, and the answer can be challenging to type. Make sure you look at the last line.

"And this Court doubts that “Congress 6 WEST VIRGINIA v. EPA Syllabus . . . intended to delegate . . . decision of such economic and political significance,” i.e., how much coal-based generation there should be over the coming decades, to any administrative agency."

The EPA overstepped its authority.

Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal....it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.

When the EPA changed this, it acted as the legislative branch. The bureaucracy will have to be very cognizant of what they are doing to enforce the rule of law and be aware that they cannot overstep their authorities.

It is probably a step to far to say the SCOTUS took this power completely away, as some will say it did.
 
How would that work in real life? Every agency has issued thousands of regulations. Would the Legislative Branch be required to issue those regulations for them? Legislators already complain they have to vote on bills that are so long they can't read them. How are they supposed to oversee the writing of and approval of regulations for each of the agencies?
The Constitution is four pages and that set up an entire government. The dumbasses in Congress can't pass a single bill that's not thousand pages. That should tell you something.
 
That is scary on so many levels.
Remember the movie, Roadhouse, where Patrick Swayze is a bouncer and he tells his crew things will get worse before they get better? That's the attitude of the Green New Deal people. The world is in great danger and there is no spoonfull of sugar to help the medicine go down. They are convinced this is something the world needs to get past, but it will eventually lead to paradise, and they will be remembered as the ones who saved humanity. It is necessary for us to experience the pain. It's part of the cure. Things are getting worse, but they will get better if we just do what we're told.
 
Remember the movie, Roadhouse, where Patrick Swayze is a bouncer and he tells his crew things will get worse before they get better? That's the attitude of the Green New Deal people. The world is in great danger and there is no spoonfull of sugar to help the medicine go down. They are convinced this is something the world needs to get past, but it will eventually lead to paradise, and they will be remembered as the ones who saved humanity. It is necessary for us to experience the pain. It's part of the cure. Things are getting worse, but they will get better if we just do what we're told.
Yea, I kinda have a tendency to rebel against people who tell me to just do what I'm told. It's really just a reflex action, I can't control it.
 
Fauci and other NIH/govt scientists received $350-400 million in royalty payments l last year to promote the toxic shots- these 3 letter agencies have to go. Unelected corrupt and what they are doing to animals is straight up abuse
 
Yea, I kinda have a tendency to rebel against people who tell me to just do what I'm told. It's really just a reflex action, I can't control it.
Two classes of people my man, the civilized who don't need authority and the incompetent that most definitely do. The civilized are outnumbered by the incompetent it seems these days. Thus mr. Crap britches and his vinegar vag sidekicks destroying our country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Corndog2021
Fauci and other NIH/govt scientists received $350-400 million in royalty payments l last year to promote the toxic shots- these 3 letter agencies have to go. Unelected corrupt and what they are doing to animals is straight up abuse
Where you been?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT