Idiots. They better read the writing on the wall. That expression exists for a reason.
Can’t you just see the tears running down her face as she is writing this drivil??
CO2 is not a pollutant.
We exhale it.
Oh the horror! The mean old Court of Supreme Whim is going to minize the power that nameless faceless unaccountable beaureacrats have to harass us and create law out of thin air!
Certain entities should stop emitting bad stuff.
Hysterical RAT party talking points.
Non elected political hacks essentially writing laws without anyone voting on it?
Yea the Supreme Court is most likely going to slap this one down.
Departments are running amok with rulings that become law that only congress has authority to enact. Letting the administrative law to stand usurps the intent of congress. Now congress enjoys this because they can point fingers thinking they have immunity.
This basically is about administrative overreach. Proggies love it until it goes against them, then they’re in court so fast you can see the vapor trail.
“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’.
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.
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%
The point of this is to make congress vote on these restricting policies and reap the consequences of those votes instead of hiding behind this bureaucracy.