Could This Be The Next Shoe to Drop?

[Rightguide]

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.

That was my point in starting the thread. This decision, absent specific legislation, could completely shut down the green new deal and a host of other Bureaucratic actions in which the government has assumed far reaching authority not authorized by Congress. The court started this ball rolling with the June 15th decision in the AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. BECERRA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL, it could very well expand upon that ruling in the West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency case. We should see it today or tomorrow.

 

[Rightguide]

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.

Don't forget the catalog of monumental insults to the Second Amendment committed by the ATF that are completely outside of it's enabling legislation.

 

[Chobham]

That was my point in starting the thread. This decision, absent specific legislation, could completely shut down the green new deal and a host of other Bureaucratic actions in which the government has assumed far reaching authority not authorized by Congress. The court started this ball rolling with the June 15th decision in the AMERICAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. BECERRA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL, it could very well expand upon that ruling in the West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency case. We should see it today or tomorrow.

That ruling also extends into the recent redefinition of what constitutes a firearm by the ATF. We're going to find out how consistent the court is.

 

[icanhelp1]

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.

Maybe concentrate on legislation rather than sham impeachments and kangaroo show trials.

 

[Rightguide]

That ruling also extends into the recent redefinition of what constitutes a firearm by the ATF. We're going to find out how consistent the court is.

There are some cases before the court that were awaiting the New York case decision. I suspect today or on Friday the court will deal with these in some way, maybe remand them back to the lower courts to be decided according the new criteria created by the New York decision, that being all of those cases which were decided by the two tiered criteria, now ruled as unconstitutional, so must now be reconsidered using new criteria as the court explained:

To be sure, “[h]istorical analysis can be difficult; it sometimes requires resolving threshold questions, and making nuanced judgments about which evidence to consult and how to interpret it.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 803–804 (Scalia, J., concurring). But reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text—especially text meant to codify a pre-existing right—is, in our view, more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field. Id., at 790–791 (plurality opinion)

 

[Rightguide]

That ruling also extends into the recent redefinition of what constitutes a firearm by the ATF. We're going to find out how consistent the court is.

There a number of transgressions by the ATF that need to be addressed by the federal courts. Based on the three case holdings I have mentioned I can tell you that gun rights organizations all over the country are lining up their lawsuits as we speak.

 

[Chobham]

There a number of transgressions by the ATF that need to be addressed by the federal courts. Based on the three case holdings I have mentioned I can tell you that gun rights organizations all over the country are lining up their lawsuits as we speak.

There are four pending cases. Most likely the court will remand the cases to the lower court to be reconsidered under the new evaluation guidelines.

 

[Rightguide]

There are four pending cases. Most likely the court will remand the cases to the lower court to be reconsidered under the new evaluation guidelines.

The outcomes will be interesting, possibly exhilarating as well.

 

[Chobham]

Watch the 9th dig in.

 

[Chobham]

If West Virginians don't care about poisoned water, that is still an issue for everyone downstream in other states. That's why we have federal agencies.

Why do you bother to comment on something that has nothing to do with what's before the court and something you obviously know nothing about?

 

[Rightguide]

Supreme Court deals Biden climate agenda serious blow with EPA decision​

The ruling in West Virginia v. EPA was highly anticipated​

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Comments
• Print
• Email

By Ronn Blitzer Fox Business

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.

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

And here it is.

 

[Rightguide]

So the Green New Deal is dead in it's tracks without further congressional legislation.

 

[JohnEngelman]

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.

Environmental protection is necessary expensive. It interferes with economic growth, and it costs money. It is also necessary to prevent global warming and to create environments that are safe and healthful to live in.

 

[Rightguide]

Environmental protection is necessary expensive. It interferes with economic growth, and it costs money. It is also necessary to prevent global warming and to create environments that are safe and healthful to live in.

U.S. Achieves Largest Decrease in Carbon Emissions…Without the Paris Climate Accord​

by Caroline Downey
JULY 24, 2018

As his final virtue-signaling performance as President, Barack Obama entered the United States into the Paris Climate Accord. The Obama administration celebrated the agreement, which curiously bypassed the traditional congressional ratification process, as a great political accomplishment. Since the accord’s bylaws prevent members from leaving until 2020, Obama officials swore it was “Trump-proof.”

Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the accord received widespread condemnation and provoked outrage among establishment Democrats, the international community, and climate alarmists everywhere. They decried the exit as reckless isolationism and an ignorant rejection of climate change science. According to the mainstream media’s portrayal, quitting the Paris Climate Accord would be earth-shattering as the U.S. joined the small club of countries that “reject the future.”

But last week, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) analyzed data and released a chart based on research by the 2018 BP Statistical Review of Global Energy and University of Michigan economist Mark Perry indicating that the United States achieved the largest decline in carbon emissions in the world for the 9th time this century. AEI reported that in 2017, U.S. carbon emissions decreased by more than 42 million tons. Despite departing from the Paris agreement, the U.S. significantly reduced its carbon footprint this year. This remarkable success can be attributed to substituting natural gas for coal. We’re upholding our end of the contract and we’re not even signees anymore!

More here:

https://capitalresearch.org/article...on-emissionswithout-the-paris-climate-accord/

Even back in 2018.


The problem here for the Green New Deal is the lack of governmental authority to enact the draconian rules the left demands or offers any proof they will do a damn thing vis a vis the worldwide problem of the biggest polluters being beyond the rules of western laws. It is not a plan to address the climate anyway. It is an elitist plan to transfer wealth and solidify centralized world power.

 

[HisArpy]

The best part is that the opinion was written by Roberts. Getting their legislative asses handed to them by the most squishy member of the SCOTUS has got to seriously hurt.

 

[Rightguide]

The best part is that the opinion was written by Roberts. Getting their legislative asses handed to them by the most squishy member of the SCOTUS has got to seriously hurt.

Yes surprisingly, even his feather boa can bring pain and anguish to the Administrative State and its enablers.

 

[ll74]

Businesses understand that global warming is a threat to their business.

Good

 

[HisArpy]

Businesses understand that global warming is a threat to their business.

Good

Lol, there you go again with your snooty declamations of superiority as if they're equivalent to illegal government infringement.

 

[Wrong Element]

The good news is that the Supreme Court ruled that the Biden Administration is allowed to have a different immigration policy than the Trump Administration.

The bad news is that four justices actually disagree with that.

 

[JohnEngelman]

U.S. Achieves Largest Decrease in Carbon Emissions…Without the Paris Climate Accord​

by Caroline Downey
JULY 24, 2018

As his final virtue-signaling performance as President, Barack Obama entered the United States into the Paris Climate Accord. The Obama administration celebrated the agreement, which curiously bypassed the traditional congressional ratification process, as a great political accomplishment. Since the accord’s bylaws prevent members from leaving until 2020, Obama officials swore it was “Trump-proof.”

Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the accord received widespread condemnation and provoked outrage among establishment Democrats, the international community, and climate alarmists everywhere. They decried the exit as reckless isolationism and an ignorant rejection of climate change science. According to the mainstream media’s portrayal, quitting the Paris Climate Accord would be earth-shattering as the U.S. joined the small club of countries that “reject the future.”

But last week, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) analyzed data and released a chart based on research by the 2018 BP Statistical Review of Global Energy and University of Michigan economist Mark Perry indicating that the United States achieved the largest decline in carbon emissions in the world for the 9th time this century. AEI reported that in 2017, U.S. carbon emissions decreased by more than 42 million tons. Despite departing from the Paris agreement, the U.S. significantly reduced its carbon footprint this year. This remarkable success can be attributed to substituting natural gas for coal. We’re upholding our end of the contract and we’re not even signees anymore!

More here:

https://capitalresearch.org/article...on-emissionswithout-the-paris-climate-accord/

Capital Research Center​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capital Research Center (CRC) is an American conservative non-profit organization located in Washington, D.C.[2][3] Its stated purpose is "to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism."[4] According to The Washington Post, it also discourages donations by corporations and non-profits supporting what it sees as liberal or anti-business policies.[5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Research_Center

--------

The American Enterprise Institute and the Capital Research Center have ideological agendas. I would like to believe the assertions of this report, but I will need for those assertions to be confirmed by other agencies.

One more point: this is an appeal to emotion, "As his final virtue-signaling performance as President..."

When I am trying to find where truth lies on a complex and controversial subject any appeal to emotion inclines me to give greater credence to the other side.

 

[JohnEngelman]

ll74 said:
Businesses understand that global warming is a threat to their business.

Lol, there you go again with your snooty declamations of superiority as if they're equivalent to illegal government infringement.

What did ll74 say that is not true?

 

[Chobham]

Capital Research Center​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capital Research Center (CRC) is an American conservative non-profit organization located in Washington, D.C.[2][3] Its stated purpose is "to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism."[4] According to The Washington Post, it also discourages donations by corporations and non-profits supporting what it sees as liberal or anti-business policies.[5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Research_Center

--------

The American Enterprise Institute and the Capital Research Center have ideological agendas. I would like to believe the assertions of this report, but I will need for those assertions to be confirmed by other agencies.

One more point: this is an appeal to emotion, "As his final virtue-signaling performance as President..."

When I am trying to find where truth lies on a complex and controversial subject any appeal to emotion inclines me to give greater credence to the other side.

Did the decreases occur or not? That's ALL that matters, not who reported it where.

 

[Rightguide]

Capital Research Center​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capital Research Center (CRC) is an American conservative non-profit organization located in Washington, D.C.[2][3] Its stated purpose is "to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism."[4] According to The Washington Post, it also discourages donations by corporations and non-profits supporting what it sees as liberal or anti-business policies.[5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Research_Center

--------

The American Enterprise Institute and the Capital Research Center have ideological agendas. I would like to believe the assertions of this report, but I will need for those assertions to be confirmed by other agencies.

One more point: this is an appeal to emotion, "As his final virtue-signaling performance as President..."

When I am trying to find where truth lies on a complex and controversial subject any appeal to emotion inclines me to give greater credence to the other side.

So only the left wing can have an opinion, right? So show me where they have erred.

 

[Rightguide]

The U.N. Says America Is Already Cutting So Much Carbon It Doesn’t Need The Paris Climate Accord​

Ellen R. Wald
Former Contributor
New! Follow this author to improve your content experience. Got it!
Follow
Dec 10, 2020,12:14pm EST

Yesterday, The United Nations released its Emissions Gap Report 2020, an annual assessment of contributions to greenhouse gas and carbon emissions. The report has some notable information amid an array of complicated projections that may or may not come true. It claims, for instance, that “despite a brief dip in carbon dioxide emissions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the world is still heading for a temperature rise.”

But for the United States, the real value in this report is as an advisory that it need not join the Paris Climate Accord. This report is evidence that, instead, the U.S. should just keep doing what it is doing to cut its own emissions. The U.S. is the most successful major country at mitigating its own pollution, and the U.N. shows this.

According to the report, “the United States of America emits 13 per cent of global GHG emissions.” Comparatively, “China emits more than one-quarter of global GHG emissions.” The U.S. still contributes the most greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the world, but, over the last decade, the country’s GHG emissions have been in decline (0.4 per cent per year).“ Greenhouse gas emissions per capita in the U.S. are dropping precipitously while those of China, India and Russia continue to rise. With the world’s most successful economy (over $21 trillion in 2019), it is not a surprise that the U.S. pollutes more per person, but the U.S. is making great strides in changing this.


https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/5fd2534a0d4edd0aaa3a39c8/Graph-showing-GHG-emissions-for-the-top-6-emitters/960x0.jpg?format=jpg&width=960
GHG emissions for the top 6 emitters

UNITED NATIONS EMISSIONS GAP REPORT 2020



And the U.S. is making these improvements while it refuses to participate in the Paris Climate Accord. In 2017, the White House said, that if it remained a part of that agreement, “compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.” Instead, the U.S. continued decreasing its greenhouse gas emissions faster than any other major polluter, and it did so without the Paris agreement.

More here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenr...-of-the-paris-climate-accord/?sh=27de2af127e5

Even the left wing UN knows the truth that you deny.

 

[ll74]

The US joining the accord is more than just adhering to emission limits