Posted on 03/02/2022 2:24:34 PM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
“Weakening environmental protections would be one impact — but such a decision could ripple into worker safety, public health, housing disputes, and every other corner of American life that agencies shape.....”
That potentially HORRIBLE decision is that administration of Executive Branch decisions should be based on THE LAW, and if the Executive Branch feels more laws are needed, they can go to Congress to suggest such.
“Monday’s oral arguments focused on the idiosyncrasies of the case, including whether the coalition of red states and coal companies challenging the EPA have standing to do so in the first place. They aren’t actually challenging any rule or regulation, but the prospect of a hypothetical rule to regulate greenhouse gas emissions the agency may publish in the future.”
In case people here are wondering why this case is being brought for a rule that no longer exists, it’s because the Democrats often do this STUNT, which is to look at the present political makeup of the courts, and pull back something, rather than role the dice and risk a ruling they won’t like. Then, when the court turns left, they simply go back to the that same policy, knowing that it won’t be overturned for a while.
They did this exact stunt with gun control laws and were able to duck-out of could have been a sweeping ruling for gun rights...and it worked for them.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Post-17th Amendment ratification Sen. Warren doesn't dare mention that the states have never expressionally constitutionally given the feds the specific power to police the environment.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Next, patriots are reminded that they must vote twice this election year. Your first vote is to primary career RINO incumbents. Your second vote is to replace outgoing Democrats and RINOs with Trump-endorsed patriot candidates.
Insights welcome.
Where in Article One, Section Eight, is Congress given the power to create agencies that can create regulations that have the power of federal law?
“If the Supreme Court truly honored the rule of law and precedent, then they would acknowledge the power of the agencies that was granted to them by Congress...”
Yes it would be a tragedy if the Supreme Court actually honored the Constitution rather than the ‘rule of law and precedent’.
Yes, King Nebuchadnezzar saw the writing on the wall.
Yep, the radicals on the Supreme Ct. might insist that Congress write the laws rather than let civil servants in the Executive Branch issue mandates.
With a screen name like yours you gotta ask?
It sounds like something “The Knights Who Say Ni” would say.
Actually, I believe it was his son, Belshazzar, who was not living properly and caused the kingdom to fall. Daniel Chapter 5.
Correction: It was King Belshazzar, the son of King Nebuchadnezzar, who saw the writing on the wall. Daniel 5.
Where’s trigglypuff
and plants eat it up
but science
Yep
The godless never learn. 😔
Congress should do it’s job. They make laws, not the administrative branch. Any suggestions by the Executive branch should expire with the administration that wrote it.
Interesting. An entire story written about a Supreme Court case that doesn’t mention this word: Constitution. They really don’t get this isn’t a policy debate, its about what the Constitution says.
“Some court watchers worry that a conservative majority could also use this forum to issue a blanket ruling on agency power, one that reverberates through the entire administrative state and invites challenges to all kinds of exercises of executive branch authority. “
Gosh. That’d be just awful./S
except that agencies cannot make up laws/rules. funny thing about the legislature being the government entity empowered to do that. You could go thru FR and delete all the rules not directed by legislation and the secretaries office. That alone would reduce the government by about 60%
You might see some water vapor—the stuff that clouds are made of. “Belching”? What horse shut!>>> I would say 99% of the population couldn’t identify steam from a stack. And would freak out from it.
“CO2 is not a pollutant.
We exhale it.”
Exactly!
And WE are the carbon that the left wants to reduce.
I don’t see how they get around the Raich precedent, in which Scalia wrote in a concurring opinion =>
“Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.