Could This Be The Next Shoe to Drop?

[Rightguide]

One more blockbuster Supreme Court decision could still be coming even after Friday's abortion ruling​

Supreme Court's abortion ruling rocked nation last week but West Virginia v. EPA could also be huge​

By Liz Peek | Fox News

Believe it or not, overturning Roe v. Wade may not be the Supreme Court’s most dramatic decision this year. Instead, its ruling on West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency could prove far more consequential. It could literally upend how our government works.

For the better.

West Virginia vs. the EPA asks whether important policies that impact the lives of all Americans should be made by unelected D.C. bureaucrats or by Congress. This SCOTUS could well decide that ruling by executive agency fiat is no longer acceptable.

The case involves the Clean Power Plan, which was adopted under President Barack Obama to fight climate change; the program was estimated to cost as much as $33 billion per year and would have completely reordered our nation’s power grid. The state of West Virginia, joined by two coal companies and others, sued the EPA, arguing the plan was an abuse of power.

By deciding in favor of West Virginia, the court could begin to rein in the vast powers of the alphabet agencies in D.C. that run our lives and return it to legislators whom we elect to create…legislation. Just as the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that abortion laws are more appropriately left up to the people’s elected representatives, it may decide in West Virginia vs. EPA that Congress, and not federal agencies, should write our laws.

A decision that puts Congress in charge would stall environmental rules intended to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. Legislators, back in the driver’s seat, would have to debate and go public with the consequences – and costs -- of regulations that are now adopted with little buy-in from the public.

More here:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/one...still-be-coming-after-fridays-abortion-ruling

Judging from the June 15th decision in the AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. BECERRA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL. It would fall right in with the ramifications discussed in that decision. We may be seeing the end of unlawful bureaucratic overstep if such a decision was made in this case.

 

[ll74]

Removing the ability for departments to do their job would negate the effectiveness of regulations.

Though this court seems to myopic in its role

 

[Rotadom]

lol, The EPA is the only good thing the Republicans have ever created for climate change so of course they have set out to destroy it.

 

[Rightguide]

lol, The EPA is the only good thing the Republicans have ever created for climate change so of course they have set out to destroy it.

There is no mandate in the enabling legislation of the EPA to exceed the defined limitations of its authority or to imagine new authority as conditions change that are clearly outside of their legal authority. There's nothing in the Constitution or the law that allows it. So, it isn't a matter of shutting down the EPA but a simple matter requiring its edicts being issued from within the limits of its legal authority and not it's political assumptions. If the EPA requires more authority it can lobby Congress to add to it. So, no need to wet the bed tonight.

 

[ll74]

There is no mandate in the enabling legislation of the EPA to exceed the defined limitations of its authority or to imagine new authority as conditions change that are clearly outside of their legal authority. There's nothing in the Constitution or the law that allows it. So, it isn't a matter of shutting down the EPA but a simple matter requiring its edicts being issued from within the limits of its legal authority and not it's political assumptions. If the EPA requires more authority it can lobby Congress to add to it. So, no need to wet the bed tonight.

Yes, we get that you're arguing against the EPA here.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

No doubt about it. This is a big one. How big will depend on how narrow or broad they go.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

No doubt about it. This is a big one. How big will depend on how narrow or broad they go.

This is the type of expert and in depth analysis we've come to expect from you.

 

[Rightguide]

No doubt about it. This is a big one. How big will depend on how narrow or broad they go.

Yep, it could be bigger and more far reaching than Roe or New York.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yep, it could be bigger and more far reaching than Roe or New York.

Members of Congress might have work harder.

 

[Rightguide]

Members of Congress might have work harder.

Yes. It's time for them to get back to law making instead of creating an unconstitutional vacuum into which the unelected administrative state is more than happy to put on their hob nail boots and jump into.

 

[dmonty]

Removing the ability for departments to do their job would negate the effectiveness of regulations.

Though this court seems to myopic in its role

abolishing unconstitutional executive departments and instead putting the power back in CONUS' authority to pass laws, all the Executive Departments are unconstitutional and exceed the enumerated powers of the US Constitution

 

[ll74]

abolishing unconstitutional executive departments and instead putting the power back in CONUS' authority to pass laws, all the Executive Departments are unconstitutional and exceed the enumerated powers of the US Constitution

Yes, you can just say that you don't agree.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The narrow question in West Virginia v. the EPA is what steps the agency can take to control the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act to include greenhouse gasses for the first time. The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970 to deal with smog, acid rain, etc. Climate change and GHGs were not on the radar.

The broader issue is something known as the “non-delegation doctrine“ which is intended to safeguard the Constitution’s separation of powers. All legislative powers lie with Congress. When Congress passes vague laws that effectively give administrative agencies a blank check, they’ve essentially delegated legislative power.

The pending SCOTUS decision could go way beyond the EPA and GHGs.

 

[PaxNurgle]

Yep, it could be bigger and more far reaching than Roe or New York.

It could certainly have far-reaching consequences for public health and safety if environmental regulations are discarded.

I mean, while you obviously love drinking contaminated water, breathing polluted air and watching companies dump toxins into the environment (and God knows why, but apparently you do...) I am pretty sure most Americans don't- in far, far greater numbers (percentage wise) than don't want to see all abortions banned.

 

[Chobham]

The narrow question in West Virginia v. the EPA is what steps the agency can take to control the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act to include greenhouse gasses for the first time. The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970 to deal with smog, acid rain, etc. Climate change and GHGs were not on the radar.

The broader issue is something known as the “non-delegation doctrine“ which is intended to safeguard the Constitution’s separation of powers. All legislative powers lie with Congress. When Congress passes vague laws that effectively give administrative agencies a blank check, they’ve essentially delegated legislative power.

The pending SCOTUS decision could go way beyond the EPA and GHGs.

Delegated legislation is a long standing precedent carried over from English Parliamentary procedure. The legislative body passes enabling legislation. That legislation defines who has the authority to make subordinate legislation, defines the terms, and defines the scope of any subordinate legislation either by specific mandate or by establishing fences to restrict any subordinate legislation.

The question before the court is, does an enabled body of the administrative branch have the ability to redefine the scope of it's authority without further guidance from the legislative body?

With regard to the EPA, that particular body is responsible for as many screw-ups, some monumental, as it's been responsible for good deeds. (The same can be said of virtually EVERY administrative body.) A decision here in favor of W.Va. will have little effect on the other legislatively mandated authorities of the EPA, the decision will be narrow indeed.

On the other hand should the EPA prevail that outcome forebodes a grim future for everyone. It will be a signal that any administrative agency can redefine it's scope and mandates to suit it's own purposes. And while there will always be a constituency that will support that effort it is clearly a situation where one day we will look around and find that we are living in a dictatorship where each successive president can exert his or her will via the unelected, and virtually unaccountable, bureaucracy. So even if you do support the EPA in this case there is a long term risk that goes far beyond this case.

(BB50. While I quoted you my remarks are not directed towards you. I quoted you because you are the one that keyed in on the notion of 'delegated legislation.')

 

[Chernosoth]

Considering how much WV water is undrinkable, I wonder was the EPA ever allowed into the state.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Yep, it could be bigger and more far reaching than Roe or New York.

If it as big and far reaching as you hope it will be it will result in a dirtier and hotter environment.

 

[Tigersman]

lol, The EPA is the only good thing the Republicans have ever created for climate change so of course they have set out to destroy it.

Here in Texas we have had Republicans as Governors and in control of our state legislature since the late 90s. They have fought everything the EPA has tried to do to improve air quality at our refineries and petrochemical plants. The people who live in these areas are the ones who suffer while our Austin based leaders screw the rest of us over.

 

[coati]

Now that the Republican Party has completely become a suicide cult, it does not surprise me that they are celebrating the prospect of not allowing the EPA to regulate GHG levels in the atmosphere.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Now that the Republican Party has completely become a suicide cult, it does not surprise me that they are celebrating the prospect of not allowing the EPA to regulate GHG levels in the atmosphere.

That's not the issue.

The issue is whether or not the EPA can regulate GHGs under their Clean Air Act authority.

 

[coati]

That's not the issue.

The issue is whether or not the EPA can regulate GHGs under their Clean Air Act authority.

I know what the Republican strict constructionist argument is, asshole.

I also know that they have no intention of supporting any Congressional action to regulate GHGs and are celebrating the fact that they may be able to prevent the EPA from doing so. Suicide cult.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I know what the Republican strict constructionist argument is, asshole.

I also know that they have no intention of supporting any Congressional action to regulate GHGs and are celebrating the fact that they may be able to prevent the EPA from doing so. Suicide cult.

None of that is relevant in any way to the pending case.

But troll on, Bro!

 

[Rightguide]

If it as big and far reaching as you hope it will be it will result in a dirtier and hotter environment.

There's nothing that proves the current administration's policy will do what it promises either, but it will destroy the economy of the United States and heap great harm on our citizens. We see the destruction unfolding before our eyes right now.

 

[Rightguide]

The narrow question in West Virginia v. the EPA is what steps the agency can take to control the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act to include greenhouse gasses for the first time. The Clean Air Act was passed in 1970 to deal with smog, acid rain, etc. Climate change and GHGs were not on the radar.

The broader issue is something known as the “non-delegation doctrine“ which is intended to safeguard the Constitution’s separation of powers. All legislative powers lie with Congress. When Congress passes vague laws that effectively give administrative agencies a blank check, they’ve essentially delegated legislative power.

The pending SCOTUS decision could go way beyond the EPA and GHGs.

The other doctrine is the "Major Questions Doctrine" which is summarized as follows:

When Congress intends for an executive agency to decide major questions of significant economic and political consequence, it will clearly spell it out in the enabling legislation instructing the agency to take clear and specific action and authority within its text. Otherwise, it will be assumed by the court that Congress decided to keep that authority for itself.

It is clear that Congress never intended to confer upon the EPA the power and authority to reorder the entire power grid, industrial model, and lifestyle of the United States, nor did it ever assume that any group of unelected bureaucrats possessed the knowledge skill and ability to do so, nor did it intend to convey authority that violates the founding principle of federalism guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

If it as big and far reaching as you hope it will be it will result in a dirtier and hotter environment.

A broad ruling that addresses the doctrine of non delegation could also affect regulatory actions of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, FDA, FCC, FTC, CPSC, NRC, OSHA, SEC and any other large federal agency with administrative authority. Congress could be forced to more clearly define the scope of agency powers in major legislation. The scope of future Executive Orders could be curtailed. We’ll have to wait and see the West VA v EPA ruling before we know though.