SCOTUS Guts EPA

[Rach3]

The Alito Court knows full well, of course, that Congress cant pass anything over any opposition by the fossil fuel and power industries.And the Court now joins with Steve Bannon's assault on " the administrative State " .

Kagan's dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Breyer:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 0_n758.pdf


"Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”





This Court has obstructed EPA’s effort from the beginning. Right after the Obama administration issued the Clean Power Plan, the Court stayed its implementation. That action was unprecedented: Never before had the Court stayed a regulation then under review in the lower courts.


So by the time yet another President took office, the Plan had become, as a practical matter, obsolete. For that reason, the Biden administration announced that, instead of putting the Plan into effect, it would commence a new rulemaking. Yet this Court determined to pronounce on the legality of the old rule anyway. The Court may be right that doing so does not violate Article III mootness rules (which are notoriously strict). See ante, at 14–16. But the Court’s docket is discretionary, and because no one is now subject to the Clean Power Plan’s terms, there was no reason to reach out to decide this case. The Court today issues what is really an advisory opinion on the proper scope of the new rule EPA is considering. That new rule will be subject anyway to immediate, pre-enforcement judicial review. But this Court could not wait—even to see what the new rule says—to constrain EPA’s efforts to address climate change.

The parties do not dispute that generation shifting is indeed the “best system”—the most effective and efficient way to reduce power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. And no other provision in the Clean Air Act suggests that Congress meant to foreclose EPA from selecting that system; to the contrary, the Plan’s regulatory approach fits hand-in-glove with the rest of the statute.


The majority’s decision rests on one claim alone: that generation shifting is just too new and too big a deal for Congress to have authorized it in Section 111’s general terms. But that is wrong. A key reason Congress makes broad delegations like Section 111 is so an agency can respond, appropriately and commensurately, to new and big problems. Congress knows what it doesn’t and can’t know when it drafts a statute; and Congress therefore gives an expert agency the power to address issues—even significant ones—as and when they arise. That is what Congress did in enacting Section 111. The majority today overrides that legislative choice. In so doing, it deprives EPA of the power needed—and the power granted—to curb the emission of greenhouse gases.


The majority breezes past that congressional choice on the ground that today’s opinion does not resolve whether EPA can regulate in some non-technological ways; instead,
the opinion says only that the Clean Power Plan goes too far.

The Clean Power Plan falls within EPA’s wheelhouse, and it fits perfectly—as I’ve just shown—with all the Clean Air Act’s provisions. That the Plan addresses major issues of public policy does not upend the analysis. Congress wanted EPA to do just that.


Section 111 entrusts important matters to EPA in the expectation that the Agency will use that authority to combat pollution—and that courts will not interfere.
In particular, we have understood, Congress does not usually grant agencies the authority to decide significant issues on which they have no particular expertise.

So when there is a mismatch between the agency’s usual portfolio and a given assertion of power, courts have reason to question whether Congress intended a delegation to go so far.The majority today goes beyond those sensible principles.It announces the arrival of the “major questions doctrine,” which replaces normal text-in-context statutory interpretation with some tougher-to-satisfy set of rules. Ante, at 16– 31. Apparently, there is now a two-step inquiry. First, a court must decide, by looking at some panoply of factors, whether agency action presents an “extraordinary case[].” Ante, at 17; see ante, at 20–28. If it does, the agency “must point to clear congressional authorization for the power it claims,” someplace over and above the normal statutory basis we require. Ante, at 19 (internal quotation marks omit- ted); see ante, at 28–31. The result is statutory interpreta- tion of an unusual kind. It is not until page 28 of a 31-page opinion that the majority begins to seriously discuss the meaning of Section 111. And even then, it does not address straight-up what should be the question: Does the text of that provision, when read in context and with a common- sense awareness of how Congress delegates, authorize the agency action here?



The majority claims it is just following precedent, but that is not so. The Court has never even used the term “major questions doctrine” before.

It claims EPA has no “comparative expertise” in “balancing the many vital considerations of national policy” implicated in regulating electricity sources. But that is wrong.We explained 11 short years ago, citing Congress, that it was smack in the middle of EPA’s wheelhouse.

And we were right. Consider the Clean Power Plan’s component parts—let’s call them the what, who, and how— to see the rule’s normalcy. The “what” is the subject matter of the Plan: carbon dioxide emissions. This Court has already found that those emissions fall within EPA’s domain. We said then: “[T]here is nothing counterintuitive to the notion that EPA can curtail the emission of substances that are putting the global climate out of kilter.” Massachusetts, 549 U. S., at 531. This is not the Attorney General regulating medical care, or even the CDC regulating landlord-tenant relations. It is EPA (that’s the Environmental Protection Agency, in case the majority forgot) acting to address the greatest environmental challenge of our time.
Why, then, be “skeptic[al]” of EPA’s exercise of authority? Ante, at 28. When there is no misfit, of the kind apparent in our precedents, between the regulation, the agency, and the statutory design? Although the majority offers a flurry of complaints, they come down in the end to this: The Clean Power Plan is a big new thing, issued under a minor statutory provision. See ante, at 20, 24, 26 (labeling the Plan “transformative” and “unprecedented” and calling Section 111(d) an “ancillary” “backwater”).

The Clean Power Plan was not so big. It was not so new. And to the extent it was either, that should not matter.

The industry overwhelmingly supports EPA in this case. See Brief for Power Company Respondents 2–3. In the regulated parties’ view, the rule aimed to achieve what most power companies also want: substantial reductions in carbon dioxide emissions accomplished in a cost-effective way while maintaining a reliable electricity market. See id., at 26–27, 38, 41–42.


In short, when it comes to delegations, there are good reasons for Congress (within extremely broad limits) to get to call the shots. Congress knows about how government works in ways courts don’t. More specifically, Congress knows what mix of legislative and administrative action conduces to good policy. Courts should be modest.Today, the Court is not.

In rewriting that text, the Court substitutes its own ideas about delegations for Congress’s. And that means the Court substitutes its own ideas about policymaking for Congress’s. The Court will not allow the Clean Air Act to work as Congress instructed. The Court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much.
The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change.


And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decision- maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent.

(Rach3: A poem ) :

Someone is turning
the earth with wrenches, each turn
a bit closer to the end.
The earth is warmer.
The crickets are still singing,
rehearsing for the last day.

Victoria Chang

[Rach3]

From AxiosPM today:

" The Supreme Court has defanged one of the most sweeping tools the Biden White House needed to meet its climate targets, Axios Generate co-author Andrew Freedman reports.

The 6-3 ruling holds that the EPA should regulate emissions at the power plant level, rather than essentially setting up the national system devised by the Obama administration to help decarbonize the power sector.

President Biden called the ruling a "devastating decision."

These regulations looked at the power sector broadly, rather than regulating each power plant one by one.

The majority of the court found today that Congress did not intend to delegate to the EPA the creation of what was in effect a national pollution reduction system.
Between the lines: The conservative justices may also be inviting future challenges to rules imposed by other agencies beyond the EPA.

They repeatedly questioned the scope of the EPA's authority and used the term "administrative state" — court-speak for the sprawling federal bureaucracy and its rules."

[Rach3]

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The United States Supreme Court’s decision to curtail the E.P.A.’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide has drawn a puzzled reaction from the nation’s fetuses.

A statement from the Association of American Fetuses expressed “bafflement” that the Court would issue a ruling that increased the amount of atmospheric carbon monoxide, which has been shown to have a damaging effect on fetal health.

“It’s impossible for us to see today’s ruling as anything but flagrantly anti-fetus,” the statement read. “To say that we fetuses are disappointed would be putting it mildly.”

The fetuses asked John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch to reconsider their ruling in the E.P.A. case. “It just doesn’t seem very pro-life to us,” the fetuses said.

[Belle]

You have always celebrated Supreme Court judicial activism - until it didn't go your own way. The disgraceful public witch-hunt into the personal life of Justice Kavanaugh was something I'll never ever forget. It was the day your international reputation died.

Here are some of the best words I've seen written about the Roe v Wade case and its return to state legislatures (a small, but significant point often conveniently overlooked):

It is therefore understandable that there has been an outpouring of concern from liberals about where the court might strike next – just as conservatives should despair at the decline of the guardians of institutional stability, and fear what the future may bring.

Liberals/progressives couldn't care a damn about the institutions which are now over-run with marxists who want to trample upon tradition and have shown contempt about the concerns of conservatives. (Ironic hint: this is one of the reasons you got Trump!!)

As for the EPA decision; this has taken matters out of the hands of climate catastrophists and extremists and will be celebrated by many millions. In Australia we have zealots now forcing their extremism on us via the election of 'independents' financed to the tune of multiple millions by a 'renewables investor'. The hysterics - especially brainwashed young people - fell for it and rejected the Morrison government's 'steady as she goes' approach, acceptance of 'the science' with the understanding that Australia contributes a miniscule circa 1% of global emissions. Morrison wanted coal to continue as base load whilst the transition to renewables occurred in a more slow and measured way. Right now the zealots are in charge and they're blaming the former government for power black-outs and major disruptions, when they had their hands tied in the Senate by Labor and the zealots. Judicial activism in Australia prevented our government for getting more power stations up and running.

We live in The Age of Hysteria. I was on a local polling booth during our last general election when a Greens volunteer was handing how-to-votes to people with "vote Greens and save the planet". Of course it's a lie, but zealots couldn't care less about lies. The Greens got a massive swing in our electorate and secured more votes than ever before. But you have to have primed your voters well before that happens and school education has been the fertile ground for that. Consequently, they're mostly all 'good little Germans' these days and spruik all the correct views, no matter how pernicious.

[jserraglio]

Australia contributes a miniscule circa 1% of global emissions.

Come off it, Belle. Factor in its obscenely massive sales of coal and gas and Australia becomes one of the consequential polluters of planet Earth.

Re: Brett Kavanaugh. In Canberra, Kavanaugh's beery mistreatment of women would’ve been seen as par for the course. He wouldn’t even have to lie about it as he did during his nomination hearings.He’d fit right in with Australia’s macho political culture—which is a scandal the world over.

Last week, two conservative senators who voted to confirm him, Republican Susan Collins and Democrat Joe Manchin, have stated that Kavanaugh lied to them about Roe during their private meetings with him. He also lied about it under questioning by the senators on the Judiciary Committee.

So he lied on at least three occasions about Roe but told the truth about never assaulting Blasey Ford? And you are buying that bull poopy, Belle?

[Rach3]

We live in The Age of Hysteria. I was on a local polling booth during our last general election when a Greens volunteer was handing how-to-votes to people with "vote Greens and save the planet". Of course it's a lie, but zealots couldn't care less about lies.

Ah yes, Sir Roger Scruton's " feels" right so must be all Right , don't rock the boat , political philosophy.

[Rach3]

From Axios today on EPA case:

Why it matters: The ruling is an opening salvo in what may be a protracted effort by the current Supreme Court to rein in federal regulations — and the SEC’s drive to issue climate risk disclosure requirements could also be in jeopardy.

Case in point: In its comments on the SEC's proposal, Shell stated that its lawyers see a potential "issue" with the rule, related to the “major questions doctrine.”

[Belle]

As usual, Ben Shapiro calls it brilliantly on Twitter: one of the immense benefits of being a grown-up!!

Preparing for the wails of tearful fury from Leftists proclaiming that now that SCOTUS has said Congress must regulate carbon emissions, not the usurpatious EPA, the world will boil. In 3...2...1...

[jserraglio]

the world will boil. In 3...2...1...

Of course, it is already boiling 1…2…3… warmer than it has been in 800,000 years, ice core data extracted at the poles clearly show. Not that a diamond-tipped fact could ever penetrate the icy core at the heart of a coal miner’s daughter.

[Rach3]

the world will boil. In 3...2...1...

Of course, it is already boiling 1…2…3… warmer than it has been in 800,000 years, ice core data extracted at the poles clearly show. Not that a diamond-tipped fact could ever penetrate the icy core at the heart of a coal miner’s daughter.

From an Axios article: "CO2 levels in the atmosphere are now over 400 parts per million, and rising. The average over the past 800 million years has been 240 parts/million. The last time levels were over 400 was 56 million years ago. The fossil record at that time shows that mammals had greatly diminished in size to adapt to their hothouse environment. No livestock, no sheep, no grazing lands. If humans had existed back then, they could not have hunted large game nor could they have grown crops."