Supreme Court limits EPA in curbing power plant emissions

[Truthseeker]

By a 6-3 vote, with conservatives in the majority, the court said that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming...

“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 wrote in his opinion for the court.

But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act doesn’t give EPA the authority to do so and that Congress must speak clearly on this subject...

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the decision strips the EPA of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”

Kagan said the stakes in the case are high. She said, “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

Something is badly wrong here. There is either something really wrong in how the justices are interpreting the constitution, or they don't care about the constitution and are corrupted by coal and oil companies, or something is wrong with the constitution. What I suspect is that they are corrupted, and have a big ego about their own power. There is a clear and present danger from climate change for this planet. I already have the conviction that things will be bad as a a result of climate change. It's just a matter of how bad it will be.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Considering that the U.S. is one of the largest carbon emitters in the world, this is an example where the ideological extremism and harmful decisions of American justices and legislators may have detrimental effects that extend and reach far beyond American borders and quite possibly beyond the lifetimes of the justices themselves.

 

[pearl]

By a 6-3 vote, with conservatives in the majority, the court said that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming...

This comes as no surprise but expected from this Court.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Erosion of rights and the general welfare. Nice job, Conservatives! Very patriotic of you.

 

[F1fan]

Another example of far right wing judicial activism, which is exactly what Republicans wanted when they selected their nominees.

Members of congress who are concerned about climate change need to pass legislation to address what Roberts suggests. The way this court is ruling on issues means the midterms and 2024 election is crucial to the future of America and the planet.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I should print "6-3" on a T-shirt and make sure I wear it whenever I make a dangerous or dumb decision.

 

[Sand Dancer]

By a 6-3 vote, with conservatives in the majority, the court said that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming...

“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 wrote in his opinion for the court.

But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act doesn’t give EPA the authority to do so and that Congress must speak clearly on this subject...

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the decision strips the EPA of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”

Kagan said the stakes in the case are high. She said, “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

Something is badly wrong here. There is either something really wrong in how the justices are interpreting the constitution, or they don't care about the constitution and are corrupted by coal and oil companies, or something is wrong with the constitution. What I suspect is that they are corrupted, and have a big ego about their own power. There is a clear and present danger from climate change for this planet. I already have the conviction that things will be bad as a a result of climate change. It's just a matter of how bad it will be.

Something has gone wrong with American Christianity. It's always been different than the Christianity of the other first world nations, but with Jesus' teachings aligning with many current views, they are siding against Jesus. Conservatism seems to be rebelling against compassionate ideas. Maybe they just want to be different, like Yahweh wanted the Hebrews to be different. So being different, even to the detriment of society, is more important than doing right. That's just messed up.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Another example of far right wing judicial activism, which is exactly what Republicans wanted when they selected their nominees.

Members of congress who are concerned about climate change need to pass legislation to address what Roberts suggests. The way this court is ruling on issues means the midterms and 2024 election is crucial to the future of America and the planet.

The planet will be fine; it always survives. If we don't get our act together, we will be the ones not surviving--along with many other species that have nothing to do with humanity's mistakes, unfortunately.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"We do not want an activist court" the claim herd again and again from Republicans. Now we know that is not true. It would be hard to find a more activist court and always to the detriment of the American people.

 

[Debater Slayer]

"We do not want an activist court" the claim herd again and again from Republicans. Now we know that is not true. It would be hard to find a more activist court and always to the detriment of the American people.

You're only supposed to criticize civil rights and "woke" activists, not fundamentalist Christian ones in the country's highest court and its halls of legislation.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I should print "6-3" on a T-shirt and make sure I wear it whenever I make a dangerous or dumb decision.

6-3 should be the new phrase for dangerous or dumb decisions.

"Woah, you totally 6-3ed that!"

 

[The Hammer]

By a 6-3 vote, with conservatives in the majority, the court said that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming...

“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 wrote in his opinion for the court.

But Roberts wrote that the Clean Air Act doesn’t give EPA the authority to do so and that Congress must speak clearly on this subject...

In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the decision strips the EPA of the power Congress gave it to respond to “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”

Kagan said the stakes in the case are high. She said, “The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

Something is badly wrong here. There is either something really wrong in how the justices are interpreting the constitution, or they don't care about the constitution and are corrupted by coal and oil companies, or something is wrong with the constitution. What I suspect is that they are corrupted, and have a big ego about their own power. There is a clear and present danger from climate change for this planet. I already have the conviction that things will be bad as a a result of climate change. It's just a matter of how bad it will be.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Considering that the U.S. is one of the largest carbon emitters in the world, this is an example where the ideological extremism and harmful decisions of American justices and legislators may have detrimental effects that extend and reach far beyond American borders and quite possibly beyond the lifetimes of the justices themselves.

It depends.

Has the EPA been unreasonably overextending its authority to a point its hurting our economy/gdp?

I think there needs to be more information before making snap conclusions about the decision.

 

[The Hammer]

I shouldn't have gotten on RF before my classes.

**** I'm pissed.

 

[The Hammer]

Has the EPA been unreasonably overextending its authority to a point its hurting our economy/gdp?

What's more important the "economy"? Or our only place of residence, the Earth?

This has nothing to do with sensibility and everything to do with corporate oil lobbying and pressure.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It depends.

Has the EPA been unreasonably overextending its authority to a point its hurting our economy/gdp?

I think there needs to be more information before making snap conclusions about the decision.

Economic concerns are important to keep in mind, but if major carbon emitters like the U.S. and China don't take more steps to reduce their contribution to climate change, there will be far bigger economic (and humanitarian) consequences. The current carbon-hungry economic system is simply not sustainable for much longer.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What's more important the "economy"? Or our only place of residence, the Earth?

Well we have been doing pretty good up to this point. It seems peculiar that this came out the way it did.

I just think there's more to this than meets the eye.

 

[The Hammer]

Well we have been doing pretty good up to this point. It seems peculiar that this came out the way it did.

I just think there's more to this than meets the eye.

I don't. I think It's all pandering to corporate donors.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Economic concerns are important to keep in mind, but if major carbon emitters like the U.S. and China don't take more steps to reduce their contribution to climate change, there will be far bigger economic (and humanitarian) consequences. The current carbon-hungry economic system is simply not sustainable for much longer.

It would be nice to see what is too much for plants and other co2 organisms to handle to keep the balance and use that in terms of enforcement.

Still, China is the biggest producer as well as Asia in general. There only so much the US can do without seriously hurting its own infrastructure in the process.

It's possible the decision was made on that basis but I'm only speculating here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well we have been doing pretty good up to this point. It seems peculiar that this came out the way it did.

I just think there's more to this than meets the eye.

What exactly do you mean by this? It is abundantly clear that the Republicans need to go back to school. It is rather amazing. There are apparently no skeptics among the Republicans today. There are only deniers.

Do you know how many times I have offered to go over the uncontroversial basics of AGW with conservatives? They are often poorly explained in schools. Perhaps because of that Republicans seem to think that justifies ignoring them. But claiming to want to debate the topic and then refusing to learn the basics should not be allowed. Of course once one learns that basics and if one is honest eventually one will accept that AGW is a fact and that we need to act as soon as possible.

Ignorance can be so comforting.