EPA Loses In 6-3 SCOTUS Decision

[lantern2814]

3 justices on the court agree with him.

And 6 don’t. That means you LOSE. Simple math that you don’t understand.

 

[WEATHER53]

People we had the CDC reaching over into HUD and prohibiting evictions
That type shit is coming to a screeching halt

 

[ding]

3 justices on the court agree with him.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 664451

Yep. But 3 scotus judges do agree the court is wrong.

The world of intelligent, rational people does not operate on the lizard brain level of this board.

 

[JohnDB]

So...
What needs to happen is congress has to go to work and hammer out a deal for the coal fired electrical generating plants to get scrubbers for their smokestacks.

We want the mercury and soot removed...it's not difficult but it is kinda expensive.
Mercury gets in the waterways to where a guy can't eat the fish he catches. The mercury coming from the coal itself.

So if congress will help fund some of the scrubbers....then we will have plenty of power.

 

[ding]

Yep. But 3 scotus judges do agree the court is wrong.

The world of intelligent, rational people does not operate on the lizard brain level of this board.

What did the court get wrong this time?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What did the court get wrong this time?

Read the dissenting opinion.

 

[ding]

Read the dissenting opinion.

So you can't explain why they got it wrong? Because I can explain why they got it right; Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. So why was that wrong?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So you can't explain why they got it wrong?

That's a very poor grasp on logic you have, there.

 

[ding]

That's a very poor grasp on logic you have, there.

I don't believe so. You are arguing they got it wrong and you can't even say why.

 

[ding]

Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. So why was the ruling wrong?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. So why was that wrong?

Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions. So why was that wrong?

The dissenting opinion is about 30 pages. General and more specific reasons are identified. It's quite detailed. One general reason given is that Congress intentionally gives regulatory agencis broad mandates so that at they can change their policies to meet changing circumstances.

It's a very detailed dissent. Quite a contrast from Roberts's verbose waste of paper, which essentially boils down to, "That doesn't mean they can do anything they want."

 

[ding]

The dissenting opinion is about 30 pages. General and more specific reasons are identified. It's quite detailed. One general reason given is that Congress intentionally gives regulatory agencis broad mandates so that at they can change their policies to meet changing circumstances.

It's a very detailed dissent. Quite a contrast from Roberts's verbose waste of paper, which essentially boils down to, "That doesn't mean they can do anything they want."

Broad mandates? So what broad mandate did Congress give the EPA that could be construed as authorizing the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

road mandates?

Correct.

Meaning, congress does not dictate every policy and limit their policies only to those policies. "Broad mandate"

Compare that to a mandate that is not broad, like Mueller's two sentence mandate.

It's pretty much every regulatory board in the government.
. The worry now is that Roberts's hamhanded, poorly delineated decision could be used to strike down just about any regulation.

A valid concern.

 

[ding]

Quite a contrast from Roberts's verbose waste of paper, which essentially boils down to, "That doesn't mean they can do anything they want."

How many pages does it take to say Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions?

 

[ding]

Correct.

Meaning, they do not dictate every policy and list their policies to only those policies.

It's pretty much every regulatory board in the government.
. The worry now is that Roberts's hamhanded, poorly delineated decision could be used to strike down just about any regulation.

A valid concern.

So which broad mandate that Congress gave to the EPA grants the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions? What's the wording of this "broad mandate?"

 

[ding]

The worry now is that Roberts's hamhanded, poorly delineated decision could be used to strike down just about any regulation.

What other regulation was struck down?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

road mandates?

Correct.

Meaning, they do not dictate every policy and list their policies to only those policies.

It's pretty much every regulatory board in the government.
. The worry now is that Roberts's hamhanded, poorly delineated decision could be used to strike down just about any regulation.

How many pages does it take to say Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions?

It could have taken one. Even less, as that wasn't really the courts decision. The decision was essentially that regulatory boards have no right to form policies not legislated to the letter by congress. Once again, decades of reaffirmed precedence are tossed by a corrupt court.

 

[WEATHER53]

How many pages does it take to say Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions?

Unauthorized overreach is a liberal darling. We experienced a lot of it during the overreactive Covid hoax.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Unauthorized overreach is a liberal darling.

Your orange lard and master has the worst record of any president in history at the Supreme Court, due to his administration's constant overreach.

Do you ever get tired of just blurting out easily debunked garbage?