Kagan warns parts of East Coast 'swallowed by the ocean' in dissent in EPA case

anatta said:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...ase?dicbo=v2-c587086e5db53ca3029dca834ce46a98
Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,'" Kagan wrote.

SUPREME COURT DEALS BIDEN CLIMATE AGENDA SERIOUS BLOW WITH EPA DECISION

Kagan said the dangers of rising temperatures and, as a result, devastating environmental effects, including, "Rising waters, scorching heat, and other severe weather conditions [that] could force ‘mass migration events[,] political crises, civil unrest,’ and even state failure.'"

Kagan elaborated that the Earth was "now warmer than any time" in modern history, highlighting the importance of scientific research on carbon dioxide contributing to global warming. She also wrote global warming could be the cause of "4.6 million excess yearly deaths."

She added that the EPA's authority in curbing greenhouse emissions did fall into the parameters set by Congress.

"Section 111 of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to regulate stationary sources of any substance that ‘causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution’ and that ‘may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,’" she wrote.

Kagan wrote carbon dioxide and other such greenhouse gases did, in fact, categorize as such per the description.
Click to expand...

The HIGH-WATER mark on my dock post near Clearwater (FL.) is exactly where it was 30 years ago.
 
anatta said:
Jefferson was an outlier ( if he was talking about the Constitution) no other founder ever said anything like that

They are not sophomoric, they are written directly towards the Constitutionality of the cases
Kagan goes off on what is a global alarming rant, and then justified regulating Co2 as a "pollutant"
The Clean Air act doesn't allow such - CO2/ Ozone is not the same as particulate air pollution
which was the purpose of the Act.

If you want those regulated -the Congress has to update the Clean Air act's authority
which is the heart of the decision even beyond the Clean Air Act
(all bureaucratic regs have to have Congressional intent- not created by bureaucrats)
Click to expand...

Wasn’t an “outlander,” in fact, as I mentioned, he was the most dogmatic strict constructionist. Madison agrees with him, and it was Hamilton’s position from the jump, probably Washington also since he authorized Hamilton’s bank.

Wrong, they are written on what they want you to believe is in the Constitution, what the supposedly the Founders intended by putting it in the the Constitution, and they have been incorrect in nearly every case.
 
archives said:
Wasn’t an “outlander,” in fact, as I mentioned, he was the most dogmatic strict constructionist. Madison agrees with him, and it was Hamilton’s position from the jump, probably Washington also since he authorized Hamilton’s bank.

Wrong, they are written on what they want you to believe is in the Constitution, what the supposedly the Founders intended by putting it in the the Constitution, and they have been incorrect in nearly every case.
Click to expand...
Whatever. Marbury vs. Madison made that all moot and there is an amendment process
It' tough enough to pass an amendment -re-writing the Constitution is undoable and a very bad idea.
~~
Textualism ( not original intent which relies on understanding the reasoning of the legislature)
is indisputable.

But aside from these arguments if you look at the regulation Kagan says is fine
she relies on C02 being a "pollutant"
Do you think Congress intended such? of course not.

The problem is Congress wont do anything, activists want somethings done,
so they usurp Congressional authority by using the regulatory state.

Im not happy about it either.
Congress needs to pass something on global warming -that would allow C02 regulation by the EPA
Same thing with WOTUS -ephemeral streams are considered "interstate waterways". laughable

You cant rely on bureaucratic temperament to not go wild, an you can rely on Congress not to do its job :palm:
Such is the state of affairs -but SCOTUS has to look to Congress as the authority by virtue of what I guess is the Commerce clause ( underpinning of the EPA)
 
anatta said:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...ase?dicbo=v2-c587086e5db53ca3029dca834ce46a98
Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,'" Kagan wrote.

SUPREME COURT DEALS BIDEN CLIMATE AGENDA SERIOUS BLOW WITH EPA DECISION

Kagan said the dangers of rising temperatures and, as a result, devastating environmental effects, including, "Rising waters, scorching heat, and other severe weather conditions [that] could force ‘mass migration events[,] political crises, civil unrest,’ and even state failure.'"

Kagan elaborated that the Earth was "now warmer than any time" in modern history, highlighting the importance of scientific research on carbon dioxide contributing to global warming. She also wrote global warming could be the cause of "4.6 million excess yearly deaths."

She added that the EPA's authority in curbing greenhouse emissions did fall into the parameters set by Congress.

"Section 111 of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to regulate stationary sources of any substance that ‘causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution’ and that ‘may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,’" she wrote.

Kagan wrote carbon dioxide and other such greenhouse gases did, in fact, categorize as such per the description.
Click to expand...

Fake news. Do you have a source that is an actual news agency?
 
anatta said:
Whatever. Marbury vs. Madison made that all moot and there is an amendment process
It' tough enough to pass an amendment -re-writing the Constitution is undoable and a very bad idea.
~~
Textualism ( not original intent which relies on understanding the reasoning of the legislature)
is indisputable.

But aside from these arguments if you look at the regulation Kagan says is fine
she relies on C02 being a "pollutant"
Do you think Congress intended such? of course not.

The problem is Congress wont do anything, activists want somethings done,
so they usurp Congressional authority by using the regulatory state.

Im not happy about it either.
Congress needs to pass something on global warming -that would allow C02 regulation by the EPA
Same thing with WOTUS -ephemeral streams are considered "interstate waterways". laughable

You cant rely on bureaucratic temperament to not go wild, an you can rely on Congress not to do its job :palm:
Such is the state of affairs -but SCOTUS has to look to Congress as the authority by virtue of what I guess is the Commerce clause ( underpinning of the EPA)
Click to expand...

No it didn’t, in fact, Marbury vs Madison did the exact opposite, judicial review is nowhere recorded nor mentioned in the Constitution, according to your position judicial review is unconstitutional

“Textualism,” is just another child of “Originalism,” neither are original nor authentic, and this Court just pimps however you want to call it to offer a rationalization for what they always intended to do

And this ruling opens up the door for handcuffing if not ending the authority of any Federal agency to oversee anything
 
archives said:
No it didn’t, in fact, Marbury vs Madison did the exact opposite, judicial review is nowhere recorded nor mentioned in the Constitution, according to your position judicial review is unconstitutional

“Textualism,” is just another child of “Originalism,” neither are original nor authentic, and this Court just pimps however you want to call it to offer a rationalization for what they always intended to do

And this ruling opens up the door for handcuffing if not ending the authority of any Federal agency to oversee anything
Click to expand...
no Marbury vs.Madison simply stated that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not a guide or something to rewrite at will

LMAO. so you think reading what is NOT in the Constitution ( living document) is "authentic" ?
c'mon man! ( In Bidens voice)

And this ruling opens up the door for handcuffing if not ending the authority of any Federal agency to oversee anything
Click to expand...
it's merely saying stay in your lane - bureaucrats cannot make rules/regs
over what is not in their charter/ it doesn't roll back their authority, only wild expansion of such
 
archives said:
This Court’s ruling on nearly everything is totally predictable, Mitch insured that, the case itself means next to nothing, they will conjure up some rationale for deciding it as scripted
Click to expand...

You missed my point. The justices appointed by dim presidents are completely predictable in their opinions too.
 
archives said:
Sure it is, there is a reason it has been referred to as fly over country ever since planes flew long distances
Click to expand...

So stupid. :rolleyes: Funny you should mention that considering 2 out of the top 3 busiest airports in the country just happen to be in what you call....flyOVER country. Poor little Anchovies isnt very bright. :laugh:

:magagrin:
 
anatta said:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...ase?dicbo=v2-c587086e5db53ca3029dca834ce46a98
Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,'" Kagan wrote.

SUPREME COURT DEALS BIDEN CLIMATE AGENDA SERIOUS BLOW WITH EPA DECISION

Kagan said the dangers of rising temperatures and, as a result, devastating environmental effects, including, "Rising waters, scorching heat, and other severe weather conditions [that] could force ‘mass migration events[,] political crises, civil unrest,’ and even state failure.'"

Kagan elaborated that the Earth was "now warmer than any time" in modern history, highlighting the importance of scientific research on carbon dioxide contributing to global warming. She also wrote global warming could be the cause of "4.6 million excess yearly deaths."

She added that the EPA's authority in curbing greenhouse emissions did fall into the parameters set by Congress.

"Section 111 of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to regulate stationary sources of any substance that ‘causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution’ and that ‘may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,’" she wrote.

Kagan wrote carbon dioxide and other such greenhouse gases did, in fact, categorize as such per the description.
Click to expand...

I hpoe that fat assed idiot stays away from the beach. The east coastline is alive with great whits sharks. Gotta have drama.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top