The SCOTUS Climate Change Case Goes to the Next Level By James Reed

The Left are still freaking out over the SCOTUS decision to over-turn the abortion on demand case of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs, but there is a new case which has upset the climate change fanatics, who might get angry too, maybe burning down things increasing carbon emissions. In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court said that a bureaucracy, the EPA lacks broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court by a 6-3 decision, said that the EPA lacks broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. "Congress did not grant EPA ... the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generations shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan," the court held. This is a continuation of the position that the majority took in Dobbs, returning power to congress rather than executive organisations, such as the EPA, who themselves have a climate change political agenda to regulate energy producers out of existence. It is a small fightback against the climate change tyranny in a time of energy crisis.

“The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday significantly curtailed the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions from power plants, prompting Democrats to froth at the mouth because the court said Congress must act if lawmakers are concerned about climate change.

In a 6-3 decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the court said that the EPA lacks broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act.

"Congress did not grant EPA ... the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generations shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan," the court said.

The case concerned an Obama-era EPA regulation known as the Clean Power Plan, which created guidelines for states to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and its Trump-era replacement, known as the Affordable Clean Energy rule. The Trump administration repealed the Clean Power Plan after arguing it was illegal and introduced its own rule, known as the ACE rule, as a replacement. But some states and environmental groups sued, claiming Trump's rule did not go far enough and that the EPA had erred by issuing the ACE rule instead of following through with the Clean Power Plan.

The D.C. Circuit Court agreed with the challengers, vacating the ACE rule and sending the matter back to the EPA. But West Virginia and other states petitioned the Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit Court's opinion.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the Obama-era Clean Power Plan was an "unprecedented" power grab by the EPA that "effected a 'fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of ... regulation' into an entirely different kind."

Roberts ruled that Congress had not intended to give the EPA the regulatory powers it was claiming and that the agency cannot force power plants to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable resources without further legislation from Congress.

“A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body,” he wrote.

The three liberal justices dissented. Justice Elena Kagan complained that the court's decision removes the power of the EPA to address "the most pressing environmental challenge of our time."

She criticized Congress for being too ignorant and lacking expertise to write sensible laws regulating the environment.

"Members of Congress often don't know enough — and know that they don't know enough — to regulate sensibly on an issue," Kagan wrote.

"Members of Congress often can't know enough — and again, know they can't — to keep regulatory schemes working across time," she added.

Reacting to the decision, Democratic lawmakers were aghast that the court said they have to pass laws before the EPA can issue climate change regulations.

"Our planet is on fire, and this extremist Supreme Court has destroyed the federal government’s ability to fight back," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) tweeted. "This radical Supreme Court is increasingly facing a legitimacy crisis, and we can't let them have the last word."

House Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), called Thursday's decision "catastrophic" and said the Senate needs to nuke the 60-vote filibuster threshold so Democrats can ram through climate laws.

"A filibuster carveout is not enough. We need to reform or do away with the whole thing, for the sake of the planet," she said.

Republicans, on the other hand, praised the court for reasserting that the legislative power resides with Congress, not executive branch agencies operated by unelected bureaucrats.

"SCOTUS' decision today rightfully reins in unreasonable and unlawful attempts to shut down American power plants and energy production," Sen. John Barasso (R-Wyo.) said. "For years Democrats have used overreaching @EPA regulations to side-step Congress and the American people to enact their extreme climate agenda.

"This decision confirms Congress, not the EPA, has the authority to create environmental policy. We’ll continue working to protect the environment while making American energy as clean, reliable and affordable as possible," he added.””

“The left-wing assault on American energy was just dealt a swift defeat by the United States Supreme Court. And President Donald Trump’s confirmations to the bench paved the way for it to happen. 

Never in my life would I think that gas prices would rise so steeply in such a short period of time that stations would run out of space on the pump screen to display the price. But the Biden Administration’s assault on American energy is simply unprecedented. They will try to pass the blame, but the American people know what’s happening. Green New Deal advocates are pushing for a great energy reset in America, and they don’t care how much it hurts you. 

Arguably, gas and oil are the most visible indicators of the Left’s efforts to fundamentally alter U.S. energy policies. But the Supreme Court just handed down a case that claps back at the Environmental Protection Agency’s deeply flawed position that it can unilaterally govern energy companies in the name of climate justice. 

Government missteps and mismanagement (or even worse, purposeful woke management) plunged America into the energy crisis we face today. The EPA, under a strategy engineered by the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), sought to hijack companies for the purpose of advancing progressive policies that harm Americans. When the Trump Administration tried to fight back, lower courts argued that the EPA was essentially sovereign, with power to regulate carbon-emitting industries with virtually no limit

The Trump Administration immediately recognized the overreach of CPP and enacted the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule to permanently override the Obama Administration’s radical plan. The Trump Administration’s rule empowered states to write their own plans for emissions reductions and to provide modern, reliable, and affordable energy to all Americans. 

Upon the creation of federal agencies, largely around the era of FDR’s New Deal, people began to invest in the idea of the “administrative state.” In practice, federal agencies, which are not as accountable to voters as Congress is, can assume unto themselves legislative, executive, and judicial powers to carry out the directives of the executive branch. When federal agencies such as the EPA stretch ambiguous phrasing of laws to advance some radical agenda, they are abusing the statutory authority delegated to them by Congress, crippling American energy innovation, crushing markets, and trampling the bedrock of the 10th Amendment.

EPA essentially wants to play God with energy, and the American people are suffering for it.

If Obama’s plan had been implemented, not only would it have robbed the states of their rights, it would have cost American families $600 billion in disposable income, would have killed 226,000 jobs annually, and would have cost the U.S. economy $50 billion a year.

The EPA wants to operate with essentially no oversight or accountability, and it also wants to select which sources of energy they think work better for Americans. Just imagine how much worse the energy crisis would become if the EPA prioritized wind and solar over coal and natural gas at a time when gas prices remain at $5, $6, and in some cases, $9 a gallon. 

In a resounding victory for American energy independence, however, the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA, rejected the agency’s actions to manipulate the energy sector and exasperate the energy crisis with a progressive climate agenda. 

That decision never would have been possible without the nominations President Trump made to the Supreme Court. Repeatedly since their confirmations, dangerously radical attempts to alter the fabric of our nation have been met with swift rebuttal from justices placed on the bench by Donald Trump. These justices value the Constitution and our founding principles over and against dangerous misinterpretations by judicial activists who view them as fungible and subject to arbitrary, contemporary interpretation. 

The legacy left by Trump’s administration continues to have an impact on American lives every day. And because of that, American businesses and families have been uplifted and freed from the heavy hand of unaccountable government bureaucracy.”




No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Monday, 04 March 2024

Captcha Image