What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Obama calls Supreme Court EPA ruling "backwards"

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,363
Reaction score
22,666
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Congress clearly gave the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions by use of a grid level, cap-and-trade approach

When did Congress pass a cap-and-trade bill? When was it signed?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,363
Reaction score
22,666
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
EPA v West Virginia did not classify CO2 as a pollutant. That was done in March of 2015 by the Federal Register statute noted in this quote from the dissenting opinion. It was NOT affected by the WPA v W Virginia ruling.

How many votes did it get in the House? In the Senate? Was it zero?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
When did Congress pass a cap-and-trade bill? When was it signed?
2005
"The majority’s claim about the Clean Power Plan’s novelty—the most fleshed-out part of today’s opinion, see ante, at 20–24—is also exaggerated. As EPA explained when it issued the Clean Power Plan, an earlier Section 111(d) regulation had determined that a cap-and-trade program was the “best system of emission reduction” for mercury. 70 Fed. Reg. 28616–28621 (2005); see 80 Fed. Reg. 64772. "

and

"And the mercury rule itself was rooted in precedent. A decade earlier [1995], EPA had determined that States could comply with a Section 111(d) regulation for municipal waste combustors by establishing cap-and-trade programs. See 40 CFR §§60.30a, 60.33b(d)(2) (1996). And beyond Section 111(d), trading and other tools of generation shifting become still more common. For decades, EPA has relied on those pollution-control techniques in rules covering new internal-combustion engines under Section 111(b), sources of nitrogen oxide under the NAAQS program, and motor vehicles under Section 202(a). See 73 Fed. Reg. 3595 (2008); 71 Fed. Reg. 39159 (2006); 63 Fed. Reg. 57358–57359 (1998); 48 Fed. Reg. 33456 (1983); see also Brief for Richard L. Revesz as Amicus Curiae 24–29 (collecting similar rules)."

 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,363
Reaction score
22,666
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
2005
"The majority’s claim about the Clean Power Plan’s novelty—the most fleshed-out part of today’s opinion, see ante, at 20–24—is also exaggerated. As EPA explained when it issued the Clean Power Plan, an earlier Section 111(d) regulation had determined that a cap-and-trade program was the “best system of emission reduction” for mercury. 70 Fed. Reg. 28616–28621 (2005); see 80 Fed. Reg. 64772. "

and

"And the mercury rule itself was rooted in precedent. A decade earlier [1995], EPA had determined that States could comply with a Section 111(d) regulation for municipal waste combustors by establishing cap-and-trade programs. See 40 CFR §§60.30a, 60.33b(d)(2) (1996). And beyond Section 111(d), trading and other tools of generation shifting become still more common. For decades, EPA has relied on those pollution-control techniques in rules covering new internal-combustion engines under Section 111(b), sources of nitrogen oxide under the NAAQS program, and motor vehicles under Section 202(a). See 73 Fed. Reg. 3595 (2008); 71 Fed. Reg. 39159 (2006); 63 Fed. Reg. 57358–57359 (1998); 48 Fed. Reg. 33456 (1983); see also Brief for Richard L. Revesz as Amicus Curiae 24–29 (collecting similar rules)."


Thanks for the link.

When did Congress pass a CO2 cap-and-trade bill? When was it signed?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
How many votes did it get in the House? In the Senate? Was it zero?
It was never put to a vote but it was upheld by the Supreme Court. In Massachusetts v EPA in Early 2007, the SCOTUS sided with the EPA's earlier declaration of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases as atmospheric pollutants that could cause harm via greenhouse warming of the Earth's climate. Try to keep up Todd.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
Thanks for the link.

When did Congress pass a CO2 cap-and-trade bill? When was it signed?
You don't seem to understand what the current conversation is all about Todd. The question is what can and cannot be done by Executive Branch agency regulation given a Congressional authorization. The majority is saying that the EPA cannot regulate the CO2 emissions of power plants "at the grid level" because Congress did not spell such a thing out in the Clean Air Act and/or the Clean Power Act while the dissenting opinion argues that the language used, regulatory history, legislative precedent and objective analysis all say that Congress empowered precisely such actions. Read the majority and dissenting opinions at the following link Todd. It's educational.

 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,363
Reaction score
22,666
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
It was never put to a vote but it was upheld by the Supreme Court. In Massachusetts v EPA in Early 2007, the SCOTUS sided with the EPA's earlier declaration of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases as atmospheric pollutants that could cause harm via greenhouse warming of the Earth's climate. Try to keep up Todd.

It was never put to a vote

That's a shame.

but it was upheld by the Supreme Court. In Massachusetts v EPA in Early 2007, the SCOTUS sided with the EPA's earlier declaration of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases as atmospheric pollutants that could cause harm via greenhouse warming of the Earth's climate.

And now that error has been corrected.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,363
Reaction score
22,666
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
You don't seem to understand what the current conversation is all about Todd. The question is what can and cannot be done by Executive Branch agency regulation given a Congressional authorization. The majority is saying that the EPA cannot regulate the CO2 emissions of power plants "at the grid level" because Congress did not spell such a thing out in the Clean Air Act and/or the Clean Power Act while the dissenting opinion argues that the language used, regulatory history, legislative precedent and objective analysis all say that Congress empowered precisely such actions. Read the majority and dissenting opinions at the following link Todd. It's educational.



You don't seem to understand what the current conversation is all about Todd. The question is what can and cannot be done by Executive Branch agency regulation given a Congressional authorization.


You just admitted it was never put to a vote.

The majority is saying that the EPA cannot regulate the CO2 emissions of power plants "at the grid level" because Congress did not spell such a thing out in the Clean Air Act and/or the Clean Power Act


Clean Power Act? How many votes did that get in the House/Senate?
When was it signed?

Read the majority and dissenting opinions at the following link Todd. It's educational.

Educational? Did it teach you that the EPA can't just invent powers?
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
You ARE lost. Cap-and-trade itself, as a process that the EPA can use to accomplish Congressionally mandated goals, was not affected by the recent EPA v West Virginia ruling. The majority opinion cites Massachusetts v EPA but does so to point out what they argue are disqualifying differences with the current case. You need to read those opinions before you stick your foot in your mouth again Todd.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,363
Reaction score
22,666
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
You ARE lost. Cap-and-trade itself, as a process that the EPA can use to accomplish Congressionally mandated goals, was not affected by the recent EPA v West Virginia ruling. The majority opinion cites Massachusetts v EPA but does so to point out what they argue are disqualifying differences with the current case. You need to read those opinions before you stick your foot in your mouth again Todd.

Cap-and-trade itself, as a process that the EPA can use to accomplish Congressionally mandated goals

Excellent. Let me know when Congress mandates CO2 goals.

was not affected by the recent EPA v West Virginia ruling.

There is no CO2 cap-and-trade legislation to be affected.

The majority opinion cites Massachusetts v EPA but does so to point out what they argue are disqualifying differences with the current case.

How can a state sue to force the EPA to do something the EPA has no power to do?
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
154,900
Reaction score
38,879
Points
2,180
The syllabus, majority, concurring and dissenting opinions in West Virginia v EPA may be read at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf. I strenuously suggest reading at least the majority and dissenting opinions to inform this discussion. What it seems to boil down to is that the majority believe that the EPA lacks the authority to invoke grid level solutions to the problem of CO2 pollution due to their reading of the Clean Air Act underpinning the Clean Power Act and their invocation of the major questions doctrine for the first time in an opinion in the entire history of the court. Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion does, in my opinion, an excellent job of explaining that Congress clearly and by typical and clearly constrained methods empowered the EPA to identify the "Best System of Emission Reduction". She goes on to explain why the grid level proposal is entirely amenable to both the statutory language used and multiple precedents in regulatory litigation. She does a remarkable job in disassembling the majority's citation of major questions doctrine. Congress clearly gave the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions by use of a grid level, cap-and-trade approach and such an interpretation is robustly supported by FDA v Brown & Williamson, the most applicable precedent to this case.
Horseshit.

CO2 is not defined as a pollutant by the clean air act.

Kagan is a deluded prog ho lacks the capacity to commit logic.

End of story.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
154,900
Reaction score
38,879
Points
2,180
You ARE lost. Cap-and-trade itself, as a process that the EPA can use to accomplish Congressionally mandated goals, was not affected by the recent EPA v West Virginia ruling. The majority opinion cites Massachusetts v EPA but does so to point out what they argue are disqualifying differences with the current case. You need to read those opinions before you stick your foot in your mouth again Todd.
Reducing CO2 emissions are not covered by the clean air act.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
154,900
Reaction score
38,879
Points
2,180
EPA v West Virginia did not classify CO2 as a pollutant. That was done in March of 2015 by the Federal Register statute noted in this quote from the dissenting opinion. It was NOT affected by the WPA v W Virginia ruling.

Things changed in October 2015, when EPA promulgated Cite as: 597 U. S. ____ (2022) Opinion of the Court 7 two rules addressing carbon dioxide pollution from power plants—one for new plants under Section 111(b), the other for existing plants under Section 111(d). Both were premised on the Agency’s earlier finding that carbon dioxide is an “air pollutant” that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” by causing climate change. 80 Fed. Reg. 64530. Carbon dioxide is not subject to a NAAQS and has not been listed as a toxic pollutant. The first rule announced by EPA established federal carbon emissions limits for new power plants of two varieties: fossil-fuel-fired electric steam generating units (mostly coal fired) and natural-gas-fired stationary combustion turbines. Id., at 64512. Following the statutory process set out above, the Agency determined the BSER for the two categories of sources. For steam generating units, for instance, EPA determined that the BSER was a combination of highefficiency production processes and carbon capture technology. See 80 Fed. Reg. 64512. EPA then set the emissions limit based on the amount of carbon dioxide that a plant would emit with these technologies in place. Id., at 64513. The second rule was triggered by the first: Because EPA was now regulating carbon dioxide from new coal and gas plants, Section 111(d) required EPA to also address carbon emissions from existing coal and gas plants. See §7411(d)(1). It did so through what it called the Clean Power Plan rule.

The EPA had no authority to classify CO2 as a pollutant, period.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
154,900
Reaction score
38,879
Points
2,180
The syllabus, majority, concurring and dissenting opinions in West Virginia v EPA may be read at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf. I strenuously suggest reading at least the majority and dissenting opinions to inform this discussion. What it seems to boil down to is that the majority believe that the EPA lacks the authority to invoke grid level solutions to the problem of CO2 pollution due to their reading of the Clean Air Act underpinning the Clean Power Act and their invocation of the major questions doctrine for the first time in an opinion in the entire history of the court. Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion does, in my opinion, an excellent job of explaining that Congress clearly and by typical and clearly constrained methods empowered the EPA to identify the "Best System of Emission Reduction". She goes on to explain why the grid level proposal is entirely amenable to both the statutory language used and multiple precedents in regulatory litigation. She does a remarkable job in disassembling the majority's citation of major questions doctrine. Congress clearly gave the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 emissions by use of a grid level, cap-and-trade approach and such an interpretation is robustly supported by FDA v Brown & Williamson, the most applicable precedent to this case.
Nope.

Wrong.

What the court ruled is that the EPA has no authority to classify CO2 as a pollutant. It doesn't matter whether it's "grid level" or not, or what methods are proposed to control it.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
Nope.

Wrong.

What the court ruled is that the EPA has no authority to classify CO2 as a pollutant. It doesn't matter whether it's "grid level" or not, or what methods are proposed to control it.
Why don't you show us a quote from the Majority Opinion that says that.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
154,900
Reaction score
38,879
Points
2,180
Thought so. You've all read a couple headlines and decided you know precisely what the court has done. You fucking idiots haven't got a clue.
We know you aren't telling the truth. That's a given.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
We know you aren't telling the truth. That's a given.
So, you're having difficulty finding anywhere in the majority opinion where SCOTUS tells the EPA they can't classify CO2 as a pollutant. But I suspect that you're having such a hard time understanding the legalese you can't tell whether you're just not seeing it or it's just not there. I'll give you a hint. It's just not there.

What SCOTUS has stopped here was the approach of the Clean Power Plan, an approach that the Biden administration had already said they weren't going to enforce - and was actually never enforced at any time - because they were working on new rulemaking. The power industry, all on their own in response to market pressures and perhaps a tinge of conscience, had already surpassed the emission reduction goals of the Clean Power Plan by using the precise same "generation-shifting" methods the CPP would have applied. SCOTUS is telling the EPA that the only method by which they can enforce emission reductions is by ordering power producers to modify existing equipment with new technological solutions. The majority opinion's conclusion that Congress never intended and would not have approved of the method by which the EPA intended to effect emission reduction is absurdly flawed. The self-applied blinders the majority wear during what they want to pass off as an objective analysis has led them to precisely the results they desired. Fairly pathetic how selective are the conservative bellowing re the evils of an activist judiciary. The conservative majority's claim to be strict textualists is rolling like a top in it's dark little grave.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$225.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top