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"

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
154,900
Reaction score
38,880
Points
2,180
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.
Biden isn't enforcing the Clean Power Plan because it doesn't have the authority to enforce it. The EPA cannot impose limits on CO2 simply with rule making. That requires an act of Congress. That's what the SC ruling says. I realize that you eco-nutburger don't want to have to get the permission of Congress to impose your Orwellian schemes, but that is what the court is telling you.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
Biden isn't enforcing the Clean Power Plan because it doesn't have the authority to enforce it. The EPA cannot impose limits on CO2 simply with rule making. That requires an act of Congress. That's what the SC ruling says. I realize that you eco-nutburger don't want to have to get the permission of Congress to impose your Orwellian schemes, but that is what the court is telling you.
If you read either of the opinions, you will find I am correct as to what Biden intended to do. This whole SCOTUS action was political theater as they were ruling against a plan that had never been enforced and which the current administration had already announced would not be enforced. The majority opinion states that the EPA CAN impose limits on CO2, they just can't do so at "the grid level" but must do so facility by facility. Congress has already given the EPA permission to do what it was doing. It is only SCOTUS that thinks otherwise.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,363
Reaction score
22,666
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
This whole SCOTUS action was political theater as they were ruling against a plan that had never been enforced and which the current administration had already announced would not be enforced.

Then tell your watermelon friends to stop whining like such little babies.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,363
Reaction score
22,666
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
The majority opinion states that the EPA CAN impose limits on CO2, they just can't do so at "the grid level" but must do so facility by facility. Congress has already given the EPA permission to do what it was doing. It is only SCOTUS that thinks otherwise.

Congress has already given the EPA permission to do what it was doing.

When?
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
154,900
Reaction score
38,880
Points
2,180
If you read either of the opinions, you will find I am correct as to what Biden intended to do. This whole SCOTUS action was political theater as they were ruling against a plan that had never been enforced and which the current administration had already announced would not be enforced. The majority opinion states that the EPA CAN impose limits on CO2, they just can't do so at "the grid level" but must do so facility by facility. Congress has already given the EPA permission to do what it was doing. It is only SCOTUS that thinks otherwise.
No, Congress has not given the EPA authority to impose limits on CO2. That theory is exactly what the SC struck down.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
I note that the claim that SCOTUS told EPA they couldn't classify CO2 as a pollutant seems to have evaporated.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
154,900
Reaction score
38,880
Points
2,180
When they passed the Clean Air Act. Read the fucking dissenting opinion Todd.
Nope.

The clean air act gave it permission to regulate toxic substances emitted into the air, not a harmless gas that plants need to live.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
154,900
Reaction score
38,880
Points
2,180
When they passed the Clean Air Act. Read the fucking dissenting opinion Todd.
The are called "dissenting" for a reason: because they are not in accordance with the majority opinion.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
154,900
Reaction score
38,880
Points
2,180
If you read either of the opinions, you will find I am correct as to what Biden intended to do.
No one cares what Biden intended to do. What the court said is that he can't regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

This whole SCOTUS action was political theater as they were ruling against a plan that had never been enforced and which the current administration had already announced would not be enforced.
That doesn't make a shred of difference.

The majority opinion states that the EPA CAN impose limits on CO2, they just can't do so at "the grid level" but must do so facility by facility. Congress has already given the EPA permission to do what it was doing. It is only SCOTUS that thinks otherwise.

First you admit it doesn't give them permission, then you claim it does.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
79,363
Reaction score
22,666
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
When they passed the Clean Air Act. Read the fucking dissenting opinion Todd.

Clean Air Act doesn't give the EPA license to regulate any fucking thing they want.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
No one cares what Biden intended to do. What the court said is that he can't regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

You should read what you write before posting. Obviously, SCOTUS seems to care what Biden intended to do. And, again, the court did NOT tell him CO2 could not be classified as a pollutant. If you disagree, I suggest you try to find the text in the majority opinion which says that because I like to see you wasting your time.

Crick said:
This whole SCOTUS action was political theater as they were ruling against a plan that had never been enforced and which the current administration had already announced would not be enforced.


That doesn't make a shred of difference.

That it was political theater says unflattering things about the conservative majority of the court. That the court chose to act on a measure that wasn't going to be used is simply evidence supporting my contention that it was political theater. That, of course, makes no difference to you, but then, what would?


Crick said:
The majority opinion states that the EPA CAN impose limits on CO2, they just can't do so at "the grid level" but must do so facility by facility. Congress has already given the EPA permission to do what it was doing. It is only SCOTUS that thinks otherwise.

First you admit it doesn't give them permission, then you claim it does.

Subtle, thy name is not. From Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion:

The limits the majority now puts on EPA’s authority fly in the face of the statute Congress wrote. The majority says it is simply “not plausible” that Congress enabled EPA to regulate power plants’ emissions through generation shifting. Ante, at 31. But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the “best system of emission reduction” for power plants. §7411(a)(1). The “best system” full stop—no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind relevant here. 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.

AND

Section 111(d) thus ensures that EPA regulates existing power plants’ emissions of all pollutants. When the pollutant at issue falls within the NAAQS or HAP programs, EPA need do no more. But when the pollutant falls outside those programs, Section 111(d) requires EPA to set an emissions level for currently operating power plants (and other stationary sources). That means no pollutant from such a source can go unregulated: As the Senate Report explained, Section 111(d) guarantees that “there should be no gaps in control activities pertaining to stationary source emissions that pose any significant danger to public health or welfare.” S. Rep. No. 91–1196, p. 20 (1970). Reflecting that language, the majority calls Section 111(d) a “gap-filler.” Ante, at 5. It might also be thought of as a backstop or catch-all provision, protecting against pollutants that the NAAQS and HAP programs let go by. But the section is not, as the majority further claims, an “ancillary provision” or a statutory “backwater.” Ante, at 20, 26. That characterization is a non-sequitur. That something is a backstop does not make it a backwater. Even if they are needed only infrequently, see ante, at 6, 20, backstops can perform a critical function—and this one surely does. Again, Section 111(d) tells EPA that when a pollutant—like carbon dioxide—is not regulated through other programs, EPA must undertake a further regulatory effort to control that substance’s emission from existing stationary sources. In that way, Section 111(d) operates to ensure that the Act achieves comprehensive pollution control.
Section 111 describes the prescribed regulatory effort in expansive terms. EPA must set for the relevant source (here, fossil-fuel-fired power plants) and the relevant pollutant (here, carbon dioxide) an emission level—more particularly, “the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the [EPA] Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” §7411(a)(1).
To take that language apart a bit, the provision instructs EPA to decide upon the “best system of emission reduction which . . . has been adequately demonstrated.” The provision tells EPA, in making that determination, to take account of both costs and varied “nonair” impacts (on health, the environment, and the supply of energy). And the provision finally directs EPA to set the particular emissions limit achievable through use of the demonstrated “best system.” Taken as a whole, the section provides regulatory flexibility and discretion. It imposes, to be sure, meaningful constraints: Take into account costs and nonair impacts, and make sure the best system has a proven track record.1 But the core command—go find the best system of emission reduction—gives broad authority to EPA.
If that flexibility is not apparent on the provision’s face, consider some dictionary definitions—supposedly a staple of this Court’s supposedly textualist method of reading statutes. A “system” is “a complex unity formed of many often diverse parts subject to a common plan or serving a common purpose.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2322 (1971). Or again: a “system” is “[a]n organized and coordinated method; a procedure.” American Heritage Dictionary 1768 (5th ed. 2018). The majority complains that a similar definition—cited to the Solicitor General’s brief but originally from another dictionary—is just too darn broad. Ante, at 28; see Brief for United States 31 (quoting Webster’s New International Dictionary 2562 (2d ed. 1959)). “[A]lmost anything” capable of reducing emissions, the majority says, “could constitute such a ‘system’” of emission reduction. Ante, at 28. But that is rather the point. Congress used an obviously broad word (though surrounding it with constraints, see supra, at 7) to give EPA lots of latitude in deciding how to set emissions limits. And contra the majority, a broad term is not the same thing as a “vague” one. Ante, at 18, 20, 28. A broad term is comprehensive, extensive, wide-ranging; a “vague” term is unclear, ambiguous, hazy. (Once again, dictionaries would tell the tale.) So EPA was quite right in stating in the Clean Power Plan that the “[p]lain meaning” of the term “system” in Section 111 refers to “a set of measures that work together to reduce emissions.” 80 Fed. Reg. 64762. Another of this Court’s opinions, involving a matter other than the bogeyman of environmental regulation, might have stopped there.
For generation shifting fits comfortably within the conventional meaning of a “system of emission reduction.” Consider one of the most common mechanisms of generation shifting: the use of a cap-and-trade scheme. Here is how the majority describes cap and trade: “Under such a scheme, sources that receive a reduction in their emissions can sell a credit representing the value of that reduction to others, who are able to count it toward their own applicable emissions caps.” Ante, at 8–9. Does that sound like a “system” to you? It does to me too. And it also has to this Court. In the past, we have explained that “[t]his type of ‘cap-andtrade’ system cuts costs while still reducing pollution to target levels.” EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L. P., 572 U. S. 489, 503, n. 10 (2014) (emphasis added). So what does the majority mean when it says that “[a]s a matter of definitional possibilities, generation shifting can be described as a ‘system’”? Ante, at 28 (emphasis added; citation and some internal quotation marks omitted). Rarely has a statutory term so clearly applied.
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
37,406
Reaction score
5,770
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
All progressives are fine with bureaucracies having the ability to tax the people....they win...with trickle-up poverty :eusa_dance: :eusa_dance:

The court, rightly saw this as unconstitutional.

Drrrrrr

Fuck Soetero
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
37,406
Reaction score
5,770
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
You should read what you write before posting. Obviously, SCOTUS seems to care what Biden intended to do. And, again, the court did NOT tell him CO2 could not be classified as a pollutant. If you disagree, I suggest you try to find the text in the majority opinion which says that because I like to see you wasting your time.

Crick said:
This whole SCOTUS action was political theater as they were ruling against a plan that had never been enforced and which the current administration had already announced would not be enforced.




That it was political theater says unflattering things about the conservative majority of the court. That the court chose to act on a measure that wasn't going to be used is simply evidence supporting my contention that it was political theater. That, of course, makes no difference to you, but then, what would?


Crick said:
The majority opinion states that the EPA CAN impose limits on CO2, they just can't do so at "the grid level" but must do so facility by facility. Congress has already given the EPA permission to do what it was doing. It is only SCOTUS that thinks otherwise.



Subtle, thy name is not. From Justice Kagan's dissenting opinion:

The limits the majority now puts on EPA’s authority fly in the face of the statute Congress wrote. The majority says it is simply “not plausible” that Congress enabled EPA to regulate power plants’ emissions through generation shifting. Ante, at 31. But that is just what Congress did when it broadly authorized EPA in Section 111 to select the “best system of emission reduction” for power plants. §7411(a)(1). The “best system” full stop—no ifs, ands, or buts of any kind relevant here. 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.

AND

Section 111(d) thus ensures that EPA regulates existing power plants’ emissions of all pollutants. When the pollutant at issue falls within the NAAQS or HAP programs, EPA need do no more. But when the pollutant falls outside those programs, Section 111(d) requires EPA to set an emissions level for currently operating power plants (and other stationary sources). That means no pollutant from such a source can go unregulated: As the Senate Report explained, Section 111(d) guarantees that “there should be no gaps in control activities pertaining to stationary source emissions that pose any significant danger to public health or welfare.” S. Rep. No. 91–1196, p. 20 (1970). Reflecting that language, the majority calls Section 111(d) a “gap-filler.” Ante, at 5. It might also be thought of as a backstop or catch-all provision, protecting against pollutants that the NAAQS and HAP programs let go by. But the section is not, as the majority further claims, an “ancillary provision” or a statutory “backwater.” Ante, at 20, 26. That characterization is a non-sequitur. That something is a backstop does not make it a backwater. Even if they are needed only infrequently, see ante, at 6, 20, backstops can perform a critical function—and this one surely does. Again, Section 111(d) tells EPA that when a pollutant—like carbon dioxide—is not regulated through other programs, EPA must undertake a further regulatory effort to control that substance’s emission from existing stationary sources. In that way, Section 111(d) operates to ensure that the Act achieves comprehensive pollution control.
Section 111 describes the prescribed regulatory effort in expansive terms. EPA must set for the relevant source (here, fossil-fuel-fired power plants) and the relevant pollutant (here, carbon dioxide) an emission level—more particularly, “the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the [EPA] Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.” §7411(a)(1).
To take that language apart a bit, the provision instructs EPA to decide upon the “best system of emission reduction which . . . has been adequately demonstrated.” The provision tells EPA, in making that determination, to take account of both costs and varied “nonair” impacts (on health, the environment, and the supply of energy). And the provision finally directs EPA to set the particular emissions limit achievable through use of the demonstrated “best system.” Taken as a whole, the section provides regulatory flexibility and discretion. It imposes, to be sure, meaningful constraints: Take into account costs and nonair impacts, and make sure the best system has a proven track record.1 But the core command—go find the best system of emission reduction—gives broad authority to EPA.
If that flexibility is not apparent on the provision’s face, consider some dictionary definitions—supposedly a staple of this Court’s supposedly textualist method of reading statutes. A “system” is “a complex unity formed of many often diverse parts subject to a common plan or serving a common purpose.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2322 (1971). Or again: a “system” is “[a]n organized and coordinated method; a procedure.” American Heritage Dictionary 1768 (5th ed. 2018). The majority complains that a similar definition—cited to the Solicitor General’s brief but originally from another dictionary—is just too darn broad. Ante, at 28; see Brief for United States 31 (quoting Webster’s New International Dictionary 2562 (2d ed. 1959)). “[A]lmost anything” capable of reducing emissions, the majority says, “could constitute such a ‘system’” of emission reduction. Ante, at 28. But that is rather the point. Congress used an obviously broad word (though surrounding it with constraints, see supra, at 7) to give EPA lots of latitude in deciding how to set emissions limits. And contra the majority, a broad term is not the same thing as a “vague” one. Ante, at 18, 20, 28. A broad term is comprehensive, extensive, wide-ranging; a “vague” term is unclear, ambiguous, hazy. (Once again, dictionaries would tell the tale.) So EPA was quite right in stating in the Clean Power Plan that the “[p]lain meaning” of the term “system” in Section 111 refers to “a set of measures that work together to reduce emissions.” 80 Fed. Reg. 64762. Another of this Court’s opinions, involving a matter other than the bogeyman of environmental regulation, might have stopped there.
For generation shifting fits comfortably within the conventional meaning of a “system of emission reduction.” Consider one of the most common mechanisms of generation shifting: the use of a cap-and-trade scheme. Here is how the majority describes cap and trade: “Under such a scheme, sources that receive a reduction in their emissions can sell a credit representing the value of that reduction to others, who are able to count it toward their own applicable emissions caps.” Ante, at 8–9. Does that sound like a “system” to you? It does to me too. And it also has to this Court. In the past, we have explained that “[t]his type of ‘cap-andtrade’ system cuts costs while still reducing pollution to target levels.” EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L. P., 572 U. S. 489, 503, n. 10 (2014) (emphasis added). So what does the majority mean when it says that “[a]s a matter of definitional possibilities, generation shifting can be described as a ‘system’”? Ante, at 28 (emphasis added; citation and some internal quotation marks omitted). Rarely has a statutory term so clearly applied.

Lol....nobody cares about the gobblygoop interpretations s0n. Accept the L :cul2::cul2:
No taxation without representation.

All you progressive soupheads do is lOsiNg.

It's always about one thing....

Who's not winning?!!:iyfyus.jpg:
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
All progressives are fine with bureaucracies having the ability to tax the people....they win...with trickle-up poverty :eusa_dance: :eusa_dance:

The court, rightly saw this as unconstitutional.

Drrrrrr

Fuck Soetero
I assume you were alive in the 50s and 60s. The maximum tax rate during that period was 91%. GDP grew at an AVERAGE of 5% and as high as 8.5%. Republican tax cuts under Reagan and Trump have done NOTHING but run the debt up to astronomical levels. So fuck your "trickle-up poverty".

The decision in EPA v West Virginia had nothing to do with the Constitution. The question was whether or not Congress, in the language of the Clean Air Act of 1965, had empowered the EPA to address power plant pollution issues at the grid-level.

Have not the faintest fuck of an idea who or what "Soetero" might be.

And if your lack of comprehension of SCOTUS opinions render them "gobbledygoop" then I strenuously suggest you just keep the fuck out of the conversation.
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
37,406
Reaction score
5,770
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
I assume you were alive in the 50s and 60s. The maximum tax rate during that period was 91%. GDP grew at an AVERAGE of 5% and as high as 8.5%. Republican tax cuts under Reagan and Trump have done NOTHING but run the debt up to astronomical levels. So fuck your "trickle-up poverty".

The decision in EPA v West Virginia had nothing to do with the Constitution. The question was whether or not Congress, in the language of the Clean Air Act of 1965, had empowered the EPA to address power plant pollution issues at the grid-level.

Have not the faintest fuck of an idea who or what "Soetero" might be.

And if your lack of comprehension of SCOTUS opinions render them "gobbledygoop" then I strenuously suggest you just keep the fuck out of the conversation.
You dummy....

The EPA is part of the Executive branch. The SCOTUS decision was a no-brainer...probably the easiest decision they've had to make in years?

In the "form" vs "function" world, like all progressives, you get caught up in the form bs...that no serious person cares about. Philosophy is ghey.

Another L for the green shitheads :bye1: :bye1:
 

skookerasbil

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
37,406
Reaction score
5,770
Points
1,140
Location
Not the middle of nowhere
I assume you were alive in the 50s and 60s. The maximum tax rate during that period was 91%. GDP grew at an AVERAGE of 5% and as high as 8.5%. Republican tax cuts under Reagan and Trump have done NOTHING but run the debt up to astronomical levels. So fuck your "trickle-up poverty".

The decision in EPA v West Virginia had nothing to do with the Constitution. The question was whether or not Congress, in the language of the Clean Air Act of 1965, had empowered the EPA to address power plant pollution issues at the grid-level.

Have not the faintest fuck of an idea who or what "Soetero" might be.

And if your lack of comprehension of SCOTUS opinions render them "gobbledygoop" then I strenuously suggest you just keep the fuck out of the conversation.

Ps...Soetero a term used for Obama. Millions on the right use it routinely. Deep matrix bubble dwellers are generally years behind the learning curve. They surround themselves with other droids.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
154,900
Reaction score
38,880
Points
2,180
You should read what you write before posting. Obviously, SCOTUS seems to care what Biden intended to do. And, again, the court did NOT tell him CO2 could not be classified as a pollutant. If you disagree, I suggest you try to find the text in the majority opinion which says that because I like to see you wasting your time.
It said the EPA can't arbitrarily declare it to be a pollutant. Congress can do whatever it likes

This whole SCOTUS action was political theater as they were ruling against a plan that had never been enforced and which the current administration had already announced would not be enforced.
Irrelevant.

That it was political theater says unflattering things about the conservative majority of the court. That the court chose to act on a measure that wasn't going to be used is simply evidence supporting my contention that it was political theater. That, of course, makes no difference to you, but then, what would?
It says nothing off the sort. You keep assuming the EPA has authority to create regulations that aren't authorized by legislation. The SC ended that delusion

The majority opinion states that the EPA CAN impose limits on CO2, they just can't do so at "the grid level" but must do so facility by facility. Congress has already given the EPA permission to do what it was doing. It is only SCOTUS that thinks otherwise.

Meaningless since the EPA does everything "at the grid level." BTW, the language in the decision never uses the term "grid level," so I don't know what the hell you are talking about.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
Ps...Soetero a term used for Obama. Millions on the right use it routinely. Deep matrix bubble dwellers are generally years behind the learning curve. They surround themselves with other droids.
So, you haven't a single pertinent thing to say about this topic. Why don't you just take a long fucking walk off a short fucking pier (and I am assuming you can swim) and make the day of EVERY other poster on this forum.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
17,608
Reaction score
2,562
Points
290
Location
N/A
It said the EPA can't arbitrarily declare it [CO2] to be a pollutant. Congress can do whatever it likes
If it said such a thing, you can show us a quote from the goddamned majority opinion that says such a thing.
Irrelevant.
Crick said:
That it was political theater says unflattering things about the conservative majority of the court. That the court chose to act on a measure that wasn't going to be used is simply evidence supporting my contention that it was political theater. That, of course, makes no difference to you, but then, what would?

It says nothing off the sort.
As you can see, I never said anything on this point about what the majority opinion said, so your comment here is meaningless.

You keep assuming the EPA has authority to create regulations that aren't authorized by legislation. The SC ended that delusion
I do not. The point is that the language of the Clean Air Act, which Congress DID pass, DOES authorize the EPA to address CO2 pollution at the grid level*.
Meaningless since the EPA does everything "at the grid level." BTW, the language in the decision never uses the term "grid level," so I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

No, they do not. When the EPA required scrubbers or filters or improved technology that was implemented at the plant level - as they have done repeatedly for decades, it was NOT at the grid level. The grid level approach began when the EPA mandated CO2 levels that simply could not be met by a coal fired plant under any circumstances in an effort, via a "generational shift", to move power generation from coal to natural gas and from natural gas to wind and solar. The problem here is that instead of reading the actual opinions, you fools are basing your opinions on the headlines (and only the headlines) you see on Fox, OAN and NewsMax.

* - As was clearly shown in the text I quoted from the dissenting opinion, above.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$225.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top