Supreme Court deals Biden climate agenda serious blow with EPA decision

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,656
18,200
1,743
#1
The Supreme Court dealt a significant blow to the Biden administration’s climate change agenda, ruling Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot pass sweeping regulations that could overhaul entire industries without additional congressional approval.

The 6-3 decision limits how far the executive branch can go in forcing new environmental regulations on its own.

"Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’" Chief Justice John Roberts said in the Court's opinion. "But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body."

The case stemmed from the Obama administration’s 2015 Clean Power Plan which aimed to reduce carbon emissions at power plants. The plan was blocked by the Supreme Court in 2016, and then repealed by the Trump administration and replaced by the less extreme Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule.

After President Biden took office, the ACE Rule became the subject of litigation that led to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacating that rule as well as the repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The Biden EPA, however, has stated that it will not reinstate the Clean Power Plan, opting instead to develop and implement its own plan.

The question of how much power the EPA has was based on a provision in Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which grants the EPA power to set "standards of performance" for existing sources of air pollutants as long as they take into account cost, energy requirements, and non-air health and environmental impacts.

The Trump EPA, in repealing the Clean Power Plan, took the position that Section 111 only let them determine measures to be implemented at the physical power plants themselves (an "inside-the-fence-line" restriction) and not broadly-applied measures for entire industries.


https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...iden-climate-agenda-serious-blow-epa-decision
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,194
17,471
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#2
This one should've been 9-0. The legislative branch creates the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws. It's set up that way for a very good reason. Would love to hear the reasoning behind anybody who disagrees.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,656
18,200
1,743
#3
This one should've been 9-0. The legislative branch creates the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws. It's set up that way for a very good reason. Would love to hear the reasoning behind anybody who disagrees.
Those who disagree are socialists in favor of a large controlling government. Interesting the left thinks it's Trump when he was the one reducing the reach of the government.
 
Nov 6, 2010
3,673
1,267
1,743
#7
This one should've been 9-0. The legislative branch creates the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws. It's set up that way for a very good reason. Would love to hear the reasoning behind anybody who disagrees.
I guess for me it goes back to what powers a Federal agency like the EPA should have. So should it only be enforcement?? I guess if that is the case, then yes, I tend to agree.
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
4,269
2,077
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#9
I've been called a liberal a lot on here, but this ruling makes complete sense to me. If the government wants to regulate the energy industry, go for it, but it needs to come from the legislative branch. We can't just have massive EO's swinging wildly from one side of the political spectrum to the other every 4 years. That's no way to run a government.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
17,635
1,929
1,743
Where else but Stillwater
#10
I've been called a liberal a lot on here, but this ruling makes complete sense to me. If the government wants to regulate the energy industry, go for it, but it needs to come from the legislative branch. We can't just have massive EO's swinging wildly from one side of the political spectrum to the other every 4 years. That's no way to run a government.
Does Congress have the expertise to regulate energy and the environment? I doubt it, so let well educated experts the EPA worry about it. Maybe you would prefer every time those experts have an idea to regulate policy that they first have to go to Congress to get it cleared.
 

UrbanCowboy1

Some cowboys gots smarts real good like me.
Aug 8, 2006
4,269
2,077
1,743
Phoenix, AZ
#11
Does Congress have the expertise to regulate energy and the environment? I doubt it, so let well educated experts the EPA worry about it. Maybe you would prefer every time those experts have an idea to regulate policy that they first have to go to Congress to get it cleared.
The problem being that it's an EXECUTIVE agency, not a legislative one. This swings both ways. You could have another Trump-style appointee in there that says "you know what, everyone has to breath coal fumes twice a day", what process is in place to stop that? Then the next president comes in and says the exact opposite. Wouldn't it be better if this was a legislative agency?
 
Last edited:

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
7,530
3,187
743
36
tractor
#12
Does Congress have the expertise to regulate energy and the environment? I doubt it, so let well educated experts the EPA worry about it. Maybe you would prefer every time those experts have an idea to regulate policy that they first have to go to Congress to get it cleared.
Yes, that would be AWESOME.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,194
17,471
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#13
Does Congress have the expertise to regulate energy and the environment? I doubt it, so let well educated experts the EPA worry about it. Maybe you would prefer every time those experts have an idea to regulate policy that they first have to go to Congress to get it cleared.
Most members of Congress don't seem to have the expertise to walk and chew gum at the same time. Nevertheless, their JOB is to investigate issues and make an informed vote, be it energy, environment, economy, etc.

Obviously they no longer do that, just vote the way the party tells them to, but that doesn't mean we should move legislative responsibility into the executive branch.

If you want that, heck get rid of Congress altogether and let the president just create or repeal all the laws in this country. We could have a completely new and different set of laws we have to learn and follow every every 4 to 8 years....how exciting.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
39,276
10,960
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#14
Most members of Congress don't seem to have the expertise to walk and chew gum at the same time. Nevertheless, their JOB is to investigate issues and make an informed vote, be it energy, environment, economy, etc.

Obviously they no longer do that, just vote the way the party tells them to, but that doesn't mean we should move legislative responsibility into the executive branch.

If you want that, heck get rid of Congress altogether and let the president just create or repeal all the laws in this country. We could have a completely new and different set of laws we have to learn and follow every every 4 to 8 years....how exciting.
Congress also has the ability to have detailed studies done, bring in expert witness and contractors to help guide them through, and can hire support staff to investigate these specific types of issues and fill that staff with experts in that field. They also have mechanisms and practices in place to bring in American's or businesses who are negatively impacted to hear from actual witnesses of the situations they are looking into


Congress has PLENTY of resources at their disposal to become VERY WELL informed before making these decisions.

Our problem is we've voted a bunch of morons into Congress who would rather spend time harassing each other in the halls of the building and tearing up each others posters at their offices than do actual work.

Bottom line, If Congress doesn't have enough information and members aren't well informed enough to make a decision and a vote for the American People they Represent.....then it is their OWN damn fault.....they have the resources there in front of them at any time to self educate themselves. But that takes actual work and time investment and that takes away from Fund Raising and PWNING the "Other Side"
 
Apr 13, 2021
71
19
58
Northern California
#15
This one should've been 9-0. The legislative branch creates the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws. It's set up that way for a very good reason. Would love to hear the reasoning behind anybody who disagrees.
Just review the actions of the Trump administration. Our political institutions are beholden to donors so I prefer scientists making policy and not those trying to get reelected.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
17,194
17,471
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#17
Just review the actions of the Trump administration. Our political institutions are beholden to donors so I prefer scientists making policy and not those trying to get reelected.
Also I prefer these decisions be made by people who want my vote, not bureaucrats who do not. There is far too much stuff going on in DC where the politicians just shrug their shoulders and say it's not their fault. Make our elected officials stand up and be counted on these issues....don't give them an easy out.
 

gundysburner

Territorial Marshal
Jul 25, 2018
5,827
1,427
243
51
Boulder, CO
#18
Does Congress have the expertise to regulate energy and the environment? I doubt it, so let well educated experts the EPA worry about it. Maybe you would prefer every time those experts have an idea to regulate policy that they first have to go to Congress to get it cleared.


Yes, that would be the preference and exhibit A as to why would be Anthony Fauci.

Bureaucrats power needs diminished, not increased.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,656
18,200
1,743
#19
Wait, you're using the Trump administration as an example that the executive branch needs more power.
It was actually the Trump administration that reined in the reach of the EPA. Trump repealed the Clean Power Plan, took the position that Section 111 only let them determine measures to be implemented at the physical power plants themselves (an "inside-the-fence-line" restriction) and not broadly-applied measures for entire industries.

It was the Obama and Biden administration that took that gave the EPA broad power over the industry. i.e. laws were being written by activists in many cases that had been appointed to the EPA by those Presidents.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,656
18,200
1,743
#20
Most members of Congress don't seem to have the expertise to walk and chew gum at the same time. Nevertheless, their JOB is to investigate issues and make an informed vote, be it energy, environment, economy, etc.

Obviously they no longer do that, just vote the way the party tells them to, but that doesn't mean we should move legislative responsibility into the executive branch.

If you want that, heck get rid of Congress altogether and let the president just create or repeal all the laws in this country. We could have a completely new and different set of laws we have to learn and follow every every 4 to 8 years....how exciting.
Want to know who's influenced by big industry in congress? Look at their net worth after getting elected and re-elected.