Posted on 07/03/2022 3:20:26 PM PDT by T Ruth
Justice Elena Kagan begins her West Virginia v. EPA dissent by appealing not to the Constitution or precedent but to an imagined future of 4.6 million annual heat-related deaths, stronger hurricanes, drought, and other calamities familiar to connoisseurs of the disaster-film genre.
***
West Virginia v. EPA challenged the federal agency on its decision to drastically reduce coal emissions by forcing plants relying on it to either suppress production of electricity, invest in cleaner energy facilities, or pay the government through a cap-and-trade scheme.
“EPA’s own modeling concluded that the rule would entail billions of dollars in compliance costs (to be paid in the form of higher energy prices), require the retirement of dozens of coal-fired plants, and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs across various sectors,” the court’s decision explains. ...
This necessarily makes the regulation subject to the “major questions doctrine,” according to the majority.
***
That doctrine, though, seems too tepid rather than too bold. Why restrain unelected bureaucrats seeking to assume the role of legislators only when their freelance rule-making involves billions of dollars or tens of thousands of jobs?
“At bottom, the Clean Power Plan essentially adopted a cap-and-trade scheme, or set of state cap-and-trade schemes, for carbon,” the John Roberts–authored decision points out. “Congress, however, has consistently rejected proposals to amend the Clean Air Act to create such a program.”
Where does a government agency, let alone one created by executive fiat, derive the authority to create law, let alone law contrary to the will of Congress? The authorization certainly did not come from the Constitution.
***
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
That is a good way to frame it.
— It came from Dirty Ticks Noxious Nixon.
Say what? You've got some 'splainin' to do. Please.
Could be. Only if the courts grant standing to sue over excessive rule making outside of specific statutory wording.
Admin state=deep state.
Probably true, but the States won't ignore the ruling and the EPA now can't take the States to law to enforce the EPA's tyranny.
And the justification is weird. The justification is that all commercial action has interstate ramifications, even if done on your own effort using your own resources. Farmer Filburn grew wheat and was liable for tax on the excess.
Tax justified becuase doing this for himself reduced the amount of trade.
But another farmer who did the same thing, grew excess grain, would NOT be liable, simply by not threshing the grain.
It's not the growing that affect the amount of grain, but the threshing? LOL. Nope.
“The West Virginia v. EPA decision is a good but modest beginning at vindicating the Constitution against the New Deal assault. Let us hope that it is the camel’s nose inside the tent.”
Yes. A very good start! As someone who deals with federal legislation every day by a DC-based regulatory body, we certainly hope this doctrine spreads to other federal agencies — and sooner rather than later.
on a magical reading of the Constitution
______
By 8 FDR appointed Supremes!
Interesting, what they can find in Constitution if they are looking.
The interstate commerce basically give the government the right to make sure states do not put duties against other states, block other states items transits through the state, etc, etc. I guess interstate roads and railways could apply within the frame. But that’s it!
I second you motion, this should go.
I would not be surprised, if it goes. Justice Thomas is probably looking for suitable case?
The Court must set them straight on climate now ,LOL
Constitutionalist vs the Histrionic Personality Crowd.
Gee, can we sue the EPA for all of the increased electric costs as a result of Bammy’s “Your electric bills will necessarily skyrocket?” We are fed up with the LIES, and the Deep State Merd!
I don’t think the threshing had anything to do with it, but whether the farmers grew grain for his own livestock or grain to be sold, and thus transported. Even if he grew it for his own use, he’d affect the market because he wouldn’t be buying grain for his own use, which would have to be transported to his farm.
Or something like that ....
“It came from Dirty Ticks Noxious Nixon.”
When and how?
I was in grade school back then and busy watching “The Monkeys” reruns.
The only thing I know about the Nixon presidency is G. Gorden Liddy stating over and over, John Dean lied through his teeth.
Appreciate some insight.
Can it be enforced? That is the question
Reversal of glenshaw glass will starve the beast which was the way the constitution was written. Undeclare the wage tax as income and restore the direct tax requirement.
I hope somebody out there is lining one up!
For me, Justice Thomas’ opinion in Bruen was a masterpiece and his clear instructions to the lower courts to only use text, history, and tradition when judging second amendment cases is the most important aspect. This alone has the potential to quash all ‘assault weapons’ bans, high capacity magazine bans, and possibly even nullify the NFA.
Nixon created the EPA with an executive order. It was never legitimate.
President Richard Nixon proposed the establishment of EPA on July 9, 1970; it began operation on December 2, 1970, after Nixon signed an executive order. The order establishing the EPA was ratified by committee hearings in the House and Senate. The agency is led by its administrator, who is appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. The current administrator is Michael S. Regan. The EPA is not a Cabinet department, but the administrator is normally given cabinet rank.
We were traveling out west when Obama was running the first time. All the signs and radio stations near the Navajo area were pushing for Obama. You get what you vote for it seems.
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.