#west virginia v epa

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:

The Supreme Court’s MAGA majority has produced some of the most dangerous rulings in the history of the institution this session, not only declaring that presidents could be king but also that federal courts—not administrative agencies—should get the final say on all federal policy.  Democrats are fighting to stop that. Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren and 10 fellow senators introduced legislation this week to overturn the court ruling that usurped the power of federal agencies. And not a moment too soon, because conservative activists were preparing for this ruling even before it came down, ready to flood the courts with challenges to the environmental regulations that affect just about every aspect of our lives.

In fact, a group of red-state attorneys general have already asked for an emergency ruling from the Supreme Court to block new Environmental Protection Agency rules intended to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The rules would require that coal and natural gas power plants either cut or capture their pollution by 90% before 2032.  This is exactly why Warren and her colleagues are fighting.  “Right-wing extremist judges and politicians in the pockets of Big Oil shouldn’t have free rein to block basic pollution regulations,” Warren told Daily Kos Thursday, in response to the conservative-backed challenge to EPA rules. “Congress needs to make clear that scientists, not corporate interests, should write environmental rules.” That’s what the proposed legislation, sponsored in the House by Pramila Jayapal, would do. It would restore and codify the decades-long Supreme Court precedent that the Trump-packed court overturned this year, putting the experts in our federal agencies back in charge of protecting everything from our air and water to our food and medicines. 

Glad to see Democrats like Elizabeth Warren take the fight to the MAGA Majority on SCOTUS by proposing legislation to overturn the disastrous Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruling that significantly altered regulatory powers.

[mourning-again-in-america]

I'd been dicking around in the standing section for a while hoping for something interesting but everything just came together in Lujan (1992)

[tea-tuesday]

08/22/2023

today was the first day of my seminar on federal policy, which was held downtown so i took the metro :)) in class, we discussed west virginia v. epa and the judiciary's growing power in curtailing the authority of agencies like the epa (pretty chilling stuff). this is also a picture of my current set-up at home (peep my lucky study cat i've had since sophomore year of college)! i don't really have much of an aesthetic aside from stacks of legal textbooks/fiction books wherever i have room 😮‍💨

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from E&E News/Politico:

The Supreme Court is facing calls to undermine EPA’s efforts to curb planet-warming emissions from the power sector for a second time.

But at least some legal observers questioned whether the Biden administration’s power plant rule will meet the same fate on the high court’s “shadow” docket as the Obama-era Clean Power Plan did nearly a decade ago.

“For the Supreme Court to grant a stay would be shocking, and truly ominous,” Michael Gerrard, faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said of President Joe Biden’s rule.

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and Republican state attorneys general filed parallel requests Tuesday to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket to stop EPA’s rule limiting greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal and new gas-fired power plants. [The states asking the court to take the case are: West Virginia, Indiana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.]

America’s Power and the National Mining Association are expected to file their own joint application to the court this week.

The applicants are asking the justices to put the Biden rule on ice while they and other opponents make their case to a lower court that EPA exceeded its authority. That would include the time it would take for the Supreme Court to consider any appeals.

If they get their way, EPA critics could repeat the massive victory they won in 2016, when the Supreme Court stayed the Obama Clean Power Plan — a move that prevented the regulation from ever going into effect. The court later invalidated the rule in 2022 in West Virginia v. EPA.

“This rule poses a significant threat to affordable and reliable electricity for millions of Americans, especially as power demand skyrockets across the nation,” NRECA CEO Jim Matheson said of the Biden rule in a statement Tuesday.

“A Supreme Court stay is necessary to prevent immediate harm to the nation’s electric grid and the American economy,” Matheson continued. “The path outlined by the EPA is unlawful, unrealistic and unachievable.”

A court order freezing the Biden rule could mean delays in establishing federal standards to address pollution from the nation’s second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. And if former President Donald Trump wins a second term, his administration would likely ensure that the rule is never implemented.

[mariacallous]

In only “a few thousand days,” artificial superintelligence (ASI) may be unleashed on humanity, according to artificial intelligence (AI) pioneer and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. ASI, a capability exponentially beyond that of today’s AI, is software that gives machines “intellectual powers beyond those of humans.”

“A few thousand days” is the blink of an eye in technology time. It has been about two thousand days since Altman’s company introduced GPT-1, its first large language model, on June 11, 2018. Since then, the exponential increase in the ability of machines to “think” has exponentially decreased the time humans have to deal with the accompanying changes.

Into that closing window of time step the agencies of the federal government. These agencies are the first line of defense to protect national security and the public interest. Unfortunately, that first line has been severely weakened, if not gutted, by recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States.

First-line defenders

The agencies of government are the first line of defense because they are already in place with sectoral expertise. However, recent decisions by the Court raise the question of whether the judicial branch would sustain such agencies’ authority to act. The Court’s opinions appear to answer that question with “probably not.”

Congress created federal agencies and equipped them with the relevant expertise. Typically, such authorizing legislation includes broad directions to, for instance, protect the public interest or national security. It is often left to the agencies to determine the specific implementation of congressional intent—an agility that is especially essential amidst the onslaught of new technology.

The Department of Defense (DOD) clearly has a primary national security obligation—including the responsibility to evolve its activities to both use and defend against AI. Protecting national security is also the mandate of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Energy (DOE), and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), among others. Under the Court’s recent decisions, it appears that the ability of these other agencies to meet their national security obligations through regulation has been constrained.

A similar reality exists for other federal agencies given statutory authority to protect the “public interest.” These agencies range from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The Court’s decisions constrain these and other agencies’ abilities to act on that broad mandate by establishing regulatory guardrails to protect the public interest from the effects of AI.

Supreme Court decisions

Cutting back on the regulatory capability of government has long been a staple of conservative dogma. Turning this wish into reality with a conservative Supreme Court unfortunately coincides with the arrival of AI. Two recent Supreme Court decisions have severely cut back the ability of agencies that are the first line of defense to deal with the changes AI is throwing at society. One decision dealt with clean air regulation, while the other dealt with fishing. Both decisions are far removed from the onward march of machine intelligence, but nonetheless represent a threat to humanity’s ability to respond to machines that “think.”

A June 30, 2022 decision, West Virginia v. EPA, codified a concept that had been debated in conservative legal circles for years: the so-called Major Questions Doctrine. The doctrine covers “major questions,” which are issues of vast economic and political importance. Of specific significance, the Supreme Court found that federal agencies had authority to address only those issues that were specifically identified in statute.

The case was unusual because the EPA’s rule establishing a Clean Power Plan for the conversion to lower-emission energy never went into effect after first being stayed by the court and then repealed by the Trump EPA. That the Supreme Court preemptively weighed in on the authority behind a regulation that did not exist seemed to indicate a pressing desire to constrain the authority of executive branch and administrative agencies. No longer would an agency be allowed to rely on what the Court called a “plausible textual basis” (in this case, the language of the Clean Air Act); instead, regulation would have to “point to a clear congressional authorization.”

Almost exactly two years later, on June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent that gave expert agencies the benefit of the doubt in exercising their responsibilities. The 1984 Supreme Court decision, Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., established the so-called Chevron Deference Doctrine, which said that where statutes are vague, the courts should look to the interpretation of the expert agencies created by Congress. The new decision, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, was based on a National Maritime Fisheries Service regulation that herring boat owners should pay for the inspectors collecting data on their catch.

In the herring case, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals relied on Chevron to declare the action appropriate. The Loper Bright decision, written by Chief Justice Roberts, reversed those decisions, opining that “[c]ourts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” On its face, this might seem rather benign, but its effect is to substitute the judgment of non-expert judges for that of expert agencies created by Congress. While the opinion speaks of “courts,” in practice, for major cases, this means the nine members of the Supreme Court. “In one fell swoop,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, the Supreme Court “gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden.”

The relevance of these decisions to AI is best reflected in Justice Kagan’s dissent in West Virginia v EPA. “Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” the Justice wrote. “The Court appoints itself—instead of the Congress or the expert agency—the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”

Something “more frightening”

What is even “more frightening” is the Court establishing itself as the expert on AI. “We are a court—we really don’t know about these things,” Justice Kagan observed during oral argument on a separate internet-related case, “We are not, like, the nine greatest experts on the internet.”

Beyond the Court’s lack of expertise, by crippling the agencies with such expertise, the Court has passed front-line AI decision-making to the AI companies themselves. Old-fashioned industrial-era regulation may not be the answer for the era of intelligent machines—but neither is turning public interest and national security decisions over to those who can code and their investors.

We want AI innovators to continue to push the boundaries of what they are developing. Their actions hold the promise to solve pressing problems, improve lives, and spur economic activity. At the same time, these decisions also have the potential to do the opposite, harming the public interest and national security.

AI is not our nation’s first experience with digital companies making the rules in the absence of public oversight. We have been here before, when self-interested executives made unilateral decisions that affected the rest of us. As one group of AI observers wrote, “Social media was the first contact between A.I. and humanity, and humanity lost.”

Congress should act, of course. When President Biden signed the October 2023 executive order on AI, he reflected, “we still need Congress to act.” Expecting such complex action from a Congress that cannot pass a federal budget, however, seems problematic.

Responsible regulators use the agility of their authority to look forward and assess how the instructions from Congress relate to current realities. The agencies, after all, were created to exercise the kind of focused sectoral expertise that neither the Congress nor judges possess. Relying on that expertise and agility has served the nation well for decades.

A time of exponential technological change, in which machines are threatening to surpass human intelligence, is not the moment to pull back on the American public’s first line of defense.

[hezigler]

Watch "Sen. Whitehouse on What the Captured Supreme Court Could Unleash in WV v. EPA" on YouTube

West Virginia is suing the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of coal companies. This is not a court that's at all sympathetic with liberal & or progressive causes.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Thompson, USA Today

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

May 25, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAY 26, 2023

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta today sentenced the leader of the right-wing Oath Keepers organization, Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, to 18 years in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release. In November a jury found Rhodes guilty of seditious conspiracy, obstruction of an official proceeding, and tampering with documents and proceedings, for his role in organizing people to go to Washington in January 2021 and try to stop the counting of the electoral votes that would make Joe Biden president. Rhodes told the court that his only crime was standing against those who are “destroying our country.” He says he believes he is a “political prisoner” and that he hopes Trump will win the presidency in 2024. “You are not a political prisoner, Mr. Rhodes,” Judge Mehta said. “You, sir, present an ongoing threat and a peril to this country and to the republic and to the very fabric of this democracy.” And yet, former president Trump has said he would not only pardon the January 6 offenders, but would apologize to them for their treatment by the government. Today, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who yesterday announced he is running for president, said he, too, would consider pardoning them, promising to be “aggressive in issuing pardons.” Rhodes struck at our elections. Today in the Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency decision, the Supreme Court struck at the government regulations that underpin modern America. Michael and Chantell Sackett bought land near Priest Lake, Idaho, and backfilled the wetlands on the property to build a home. The EPA found they had violated the Clean Water Act, which prohibits putting pollutants into “the waters of the United States.” Officials told them to restore the site or face penalties of more than $40,000 a day. By a vote of 5–4, the Supreme Court found that “waters” refers only to “‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes’ and to adjacent wetlands that are ‘indistinguishable’ from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection.” This decision will remove federal protection from half of the currently protected wetlands in the U.S, an area larger than California. Homeowners, farmers, and developers will have far greater latitude to intrude on wetlands than they did previously, and that intrusion has already wrought damage as wetlands act like a sponge to absorb huge amounts of water during hurricanes. From 1992 to 2010, Houston, for example, lost more than 70% of its wetlands to development, leaving it especially vulnerable to Hurricane Harvey, a category 4 hurricane that in 2017 left 107 people dead and caused $125 billion in damage. The decision said that the EPA had overreached in its protection of wetlands as part of the Clean Water Act, and that Congress must “enact exceedingly clear language” on any rules that affect private property. This court seems eager to gut federal regulation, suggesting that Congress cannot delegate regulatory rulemaking to the executive branch. As investigative journalist Dave Troy put it, “If [the] EPA can’t enforce its rules, what federal agency can?” Justice Elena Kagan warned that by destroying the authority of the EPA, both now and in the West Virginia v. EPA decision last June that restricted the agency's ability to regulate emissions from power plants, the court had appointed itself “as the national decision maker on environmental policy.” The Clean Water Act passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in 1972, during the administration of Republican president Richard M. Nixon. Nixon backed the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 after a massive oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, over ten days in January–February 1969 poured between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels of oil into the Pacific, fouling 35 miles of California beaches and killing seabirds, dolphins, sea lions, and elephant seals, and then, four months later, in June 1969, the chemical contaminants that had been dumped into Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River caught fire. In February 1970, Nixon told Congress “[W]e…have too casually and too long abused our natural environment. The time has come when we can wait no longer to repair the damage already done, and to establish new criteria to guide us in the future.” Nixon called for a 37-point program with 23 legislative proposals and 14 new administrative measures to control water and air pollution, manage solid waste, protect parklands and public recreation, and organize for action. At Nixon’s urging, Congress created the EPA in 1970, and two years later, Congress passed the Clean Water Act, establishing protections for water quality and regulating pollutant discharges into waters of the United States. House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) tweeted that “[t]oday’s Supreme Court ruling is a win for farmers, businesses, and Americans across the nation by rejecting, yet again, the Biden administration’s costly and burdensome regulatory overreach.” But it sure looks like the story is not about Biden, but rather is about an extremist SCOTUS overturning 50 years of law that gave us clean water because it is determined to slash federal authority to regulate business. McCarthy is trying to manage his conference while members of the far-right Freedom Caucus strike at our economy. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated today that defaulting on the national debt is not an option. “The President has said that, the Speaker has said that, and we want the American people to understand that as well…. What is up for debate, though, is the budget,” she said. “And that’s what these discussions are about: two very different fiscal visions for our country and our economy.” Biden’s proposed budget invests in ordinary Americans and over 10 years is projected to reduce the deficit by nearly $3 trillion by “asking the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share and by slashing wasteful spending on special interests.” In contrast, “House Republicans…want to slash programs millions of hardworking Americans count on, while also protecting tax breaks skewed to the wealthy and corporations that will add $3.5 trillion to the debt. That’s where these negotiations began,” she said. Finally, there is news today about the man that Rhodes is going to prison for, concerning his strike at our national security. Devlin Barrett, Josh Dawsey, Spencer S. Hsu, and Perry Stein of the Washington Post reported that on June 2, 2022, the day one of Trump’s lawyers contacted the Justice Department to say that officials were welcome to come to Mar-a-Lago to retrieve the classified documents the department had subpoenaed, two of Trump’s employees moved boxes of papers. The next day, when FBI agents arrived, Trump’s lawyers gave them 38 documents, said they had conducted a “diligent search,” and claimed that all the relevant documents had been turned over. Yet, when FBI agents conducted a search two months later, they found more than 100 additional classified documents. The timing of the moved boxes suggests that Trump was deliberately hiding certain documents. The Washington Post article also says that more than one witness has told prosecutors that Trump sometimes kept classified documents out in the open and showed them to people. Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung said in a statement: “This is nothing more than a targeted, politically motivated witch hunt against President Trump that is concocted to meddle in an election and prevent the American people from returning him to the White House.”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[awesomecooperlove]

They never thought she would lose. SHE LOST!

– An outsider became POTUS

– Q happened

– 3 SCOTUS picks

– 300 Judges

– ROE V WADE OVERTURNED!

– Planned Parenthood organ harvesting exposed!

– Climate Change Hoax, shot down West Virginia vs the EPA

– SCOTUS Protects 2A constitutional carry!

– MSM Mockingbird media exposed!

– BIG Tech Exposed!

– Elections being rigged EXPOSED!

– MASSIVE Amounts of RESIGNATIONS!

– Georgia Guidstones destroyed!

– Embassy moved to Jerusalem

– Abraham Accords

– Exposure to school indoctrination of our children

– Evil Exposed like never before!

– The Explosion of human trafficking arrests

– Big Pharma exposed!

– Three letter agencies exposed (ongoing)

– NWO exposed!

– Pedo Island Exposed! Epstein WW clients (ongoing)

– Awakened us to what’s in our food

– Rhinos & deepstate exposed!

– Disney EXPOSED!

– Biolabs exposed!

– Chemtrails exposed!

– BLM exposed!

– Lightning strikes George Floyd Memorial!

– George Soros exposed!

– FTX Exposed

– Adrenochrome exposed! (More to come)

– EO 13848 extended, again

– American spirit reignited🔥🇺🇸

– People Worldwide Waking up every day!

– Prince Philip & Queen Elizabeth are dead!

– Evelyn De Rothschild, London Head of Banking Dynasty, Dead

– Benjamin de Rothschild dead

– Twitter Takeover, Parlor takeover, Truth Social

– Liz Cheney Dynasty ☠️!

– McCain Dynasty ☠️

– We won the House!

– We Fires Nancy Pelosi

– Canada will be under Trump as well as Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands

Wells Fargo just laid off 90% of their mortgage bankers.

Who needs mortgage bankers when NESARA is around the corner

Amazon Jeff Bozo to give pink slips to 10,000 before christmas

meanwhile all the grandpas on BITCH u te who love clify HIGH, maxy egan,mikey adams etc

say nothing is going on but saint hitler…. cause they know everything and will stay with their heros in 3D Matrix

💃🏼🕺💃🏼

[prelawland]

The Law Of West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency  

By Catherine Kavalauskas, University of California Davis Class of 2026

October 17, 2024

The West Virginia v. The Environmental Protection Agency is a U.S. Supreme Court case that was sparked in 2015 when the Environmental Protection Agency established the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The CPP was one of the first major global initiatives to combat climate change. However, the CPP faced resistance from several states and coal businesses as they argued that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacked the legal authority to lawfully regulate and oversee existing power plants. Moreover, The West Virginia v. The Environmental Protection Agency case stands as a critical legal case as its decision had a significant impact on climate policy and regulations on greenhouse gasses.  

For full article please visit

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency

at

California PreLaw Land

[californiaprelawland]

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency  

By Catherine Kavalauskas, University of California Davis Class of 2026

October 17, 2024

The West Virginia v. The Environmental Protection Agency is a U.S. Supreme Court case that was sparked in 2015 when the Environmental Protection Agency established the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The CPP was one of the first major global initiatives to combat climate change and was enacted under Barack Obama’s Presidential term. However, the CPP faced resistance from several states and coal businesses as they argued that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lacked the legal authority to lawfully regulate and oversee existing power plants. Therefore, the Trump administration later repealed the 2015 Clean Power Plan as they hoped to establish the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE).  

The CPP was a law that aimed to decrease carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants by 32% by 2030. The CPP sought to do this through enforcing power plants to use more clean energy sources/ devices, such as natural gas and renewable energy (2). Moreover, the enactment of the CPP was followed by heavy opposition as 28 states and hundreds of companies challenged the EPA’s legal authority in its establishment of the CPP as they argued that the EPA lacked the lawful ability to regulate existing power plants (under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act).  

As stated, the CPP faced opposition from business corporations along with the Trump administration. In short, the Trump administration repealed the CPP in hopes to establish the ACE, however, the Court of Appeals dismissed the ACE rule, arguing that it was “arbitrary and capricious” (3). Other challengers (such as the North American Coal Corporation) filed suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, directly challenging the CPP. Arguing that the Environmental Protection Agency lacked the authority to broadly/ nationally regulate greenhouse gas emissions. 

In short, the central question that the court was left to determine was whether the EPA had the legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through a “generation shifting approach” –which would ultimately shift electricity production from higher-emitting sources to lower-emitting sources.  

Moreover, the case was brought before the United States Supreme Court and the court ruled that a “generation shifting” approach would constitute Congressional authorization; and the Court found the congressional authorization to be lacking under the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Court limited the EPA’s power to regulate carbon emissions. More specifically, the court ruled that the EPA cannot design emissions regulations based on “generation shifts” that would otherwise regulate power plants through shifting emissions to more clean resources. From this Supreme Court case, the court also devised the “major questions” doctrine which established that agencies such as the EPA, must gain Congressional authorization in order to make large decisions (such as the enactment of the CAA).  

Moreover, The West Virginia v. The Environmental Protection Agency case stands as a critical legal case as its decision had a significant impact on climate policy, ultimately restricting the EPA’s ability to establish and implement regulations for carbon emission from power plants. Moreover, the case ruling reduced the EPA’s legal power to individual/ newly established power plants.   

______________________________________________________________

1) Wikipedia. “Seal of the United States Supreme Court”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg. 16 Oct 2024. 

2) Wikipedia. “West Virginia v. EPA.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA#:~:text=In%20August%202015%2C%20opponents%20of,published%20in%20the%20 Federal%20 Register. 16 Oct 2024. 

3) Oyez. “West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency.” https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1530. 16 Oct 2024. 

[blackdiscoveries]

Lauren Boebert Embarrass Team with Incorrect Non-Experts EPA Rules | BlackDiscoveries.com

Lauren Boebert Embarrass Team with Incorrect Non-Experts EPA Rules | BlackDiscoveries.com https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGJWR8GuGvw n this video titled "Lauren Boebert Embarrass Team with Incorrect Non-Experts EPA Rules," watch as Lauren Boebert faces scrutiny for her inaccurate statements regarding EPA regulations during a House Oversight Committee hearing. With EPA Administrator Michael Regan in attendance, Boebert's confusion about Chevron's independence and EPA's authority becomes evident. Explore the heated exchanges and understand the impact of misinformation in congressional hearings. 🔍 Timecodes 0:00 - Intro 0:24 - Rep. Lauren Boebert 7:00 - Rep. Daniel Goldman 🔔 Subscribe to uncover the untold stories of Black heroes, activists, and cultural pioneers! Don't miss out on captivating & powerful Black documentaries! https://www.youtube.com/@BlackDiscoveries/?sub_confirmation=1 ✅ Important Link to Follow 💰 Cashapp https://ift.tt/AmLdqyg ✅ Stay Connected With Me. 👉 Facebook: https://ift.tt/iO9Yd4z 👉 Instagram: https://ift.tt/flnC0yK 👉 Website: https://ift.tt/w5uLnv8 📩 For Business Inquiries: support@blackdiscoveries.com ============================= 🎬 Recommended Playlists 👉 Black History Stories https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3tHNA-3FfE7IYxdXJoCq0vQTcOU_Gn0j 👉 Black History https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3tHNA-3FfE7WdbG0bcc4P070xSIV2yAc 🎬 WATCH MY OTHER VIDEOS: 👉 West Virginia: Couple Accused of Enslaving Adopted Kids https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPUM52HVK9c 👉 Jasmine Crockett Unscripted and Still Called Out Their Lies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_KfzcQxJ3U 👉 Jasmine Crockett Didn’t Come to Play Games https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfrkLrGGVgI 👉 Malcolm X: Collective Disasters are Acts of God https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWgllR_91bs 👉 Health ALERT: Black Women & Girls at RISK from Hair Products https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOyasMYKF1A ============================= ✅ About Black Discoveries. Welcome to "Black Discoveries" - Your Gateway to Black Documentaries! 🔍 Explore the forgotten narratives of heroes, activists, and groundbreaking pioneers who shaped history. Witness the Civil Rights Movement's triumphs and struggles and celebrate the Harlem Renaissance's cultural awakening. 🔔"Black Discoveries" is more than just a channel; it celebrates Black excellence, creativity, and resilience. My documentaries aim to enlighten, educate, and inspire viewers of all backgrounds. 🌎 Together, let's embark on a transformative journey of knowledge, empathy, and understanding through the lens of Black Documentaries. Join "Black Discoveries" today and participate in the movement to celebrate and honor the rich heritage of Black Americans. For Collaboration and Business inquiries, please use the contact information below: 📩 Email: support@blackdiscoveries.com 🔔 Subscribe to explore inspiring black documentaries on the Civil Rights Movement and powerful stories of heroes, activists, and cultural pioneers. https://www.youtube.com/@BlackDiscoveries/?sub_confirmation=1 ================================= #blackdiscoveries #congress #houseoversight #epa #michaelregan #laurenboebert #environment #globalwarming #climatechange #environmentalagenda #politics ⚠️ Disclaimer: I do not accept any liability for any loss or damage incurred from you acting or not acting as a result of watching any of my publications. You acknowledge that you use the information I provide at your own risk. Do your research. This video is intended to be informative and respectful of all viewpoints. Copyright Notice: This video and my YouTube channel contain dialogue, music, and images that are the property of Black Discoveries. You are authorized to share the video link and channel and embed this video in your website or others as long as a link back to my YouTube channel is provided. © Black Discoveries via Black Discoveries https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTNr0N__QwstBhgCtvQcjhA July 13, 2024 at 04:00AM

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ian Millhiser at Vox:

In the less than three years since President Joe Biden took office, the Supreme Court has effectively seized control over federal housing policy, decided which workers must be vaccinated against Covid-19, stripped the EPA of much of its power to fight climate change, and rewritten a federal law permitting the secretary of education to modify or forgive student loans. In each of these decisions, the Court relied on something known as the “major questions doctrine,” which allows the Court to effectively veto any action by a federal agency that five justices deem to be too economically significant or too politically controversial.

This major questions doctrine, at least as it is understood by the Court’s current majority, emerged almost from thin air in the past several years. And it has been wielded almost exclusively by Republican-appointed justices to invalidate policies created by a Democratic administration. This doctrine is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Nor is it mentioned in any federal statute. It appears to have been completely made up by justices who want to wield outsize control over federal policy. And the implications of this doctrine are breathtaking. In practice, the major questions doctrine makes the Supreme Court the final word on any policy question that Congress has delegated to an executive branch agency — effectively giving the unelected justices the power to override both elected branches of the federal government. Consider, for example, the Court’s recent decision in Biden v. Nebraska, which invalidated a Biden administration program that would have forgiven up to $20,000 in debt for millions of student loan borrowers. The Court did so despite a federal law known as the Heroes Act, which permits the secretary of education to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs ... as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.”

So Congress explicitly granted the executive branch the power to alter or forgive student loan obligations during a national crisis like the Covid-19 pandemic. But six justices, the ones appointed by Republican presidents, decided that they knew better than both Congress and the executive. The premise of the major questions doctrine is that courts should cast an unusually skeptical eye on federal agencies that push out ambitious new policies. As the Court said in a 2014 opinion, “we expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’” In practice, however, this doctrine functions more as a freewheeling judicial veto than as a principled check on agencies. The Heroes Act, after all, is crystal clear in giving Education Secretary Miguel Cardona — and not the Supreme Court — final say over which loans are forgiven during a national emergency. It is likely, moreover, that, although the Court did not invoke this doctrine once during the entire Trump administration, these justices will continue to wield this doctrine aggressively for at least as long as President Biden remains in office, fundamentally altering the balance of power among the three branches of government — and between the Democratic and Republican Parties.

A brief history of the major questions doctrine

The full origin story of the major questions doctrine is also an important chapter in one of the most important debates in US law: When should judges, who are not elected, defer to the two branches of government that are actually accountable to the American people? The question of where exactly the doctrine comes from is nearly as contentious as the doctrine itself. Justice Neil Gorsuch has argued that it stretches back at least as far as an 1897 Supreme Court decision involving railroad prices. Other conservative legal experts, including former federal appellate judge Thomas Griffith, point to the Court’s decision in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco (2000) as “the seminal statement of the major questions principle.” The reality is more nuanced. If anything, the Court has applied two entirely different versions of the doctrine in the last several decades — a weaker form that the Court announced in Brown & Williamson, and the much stronger form that the Court has used more recently to veto Biden administration policies. [...] The reality is more nuanced. If anything, the Court has applied two entirely different versions of the doctrine in the last several decades — a weaker form that the Court announced in Brown & Williamson, and the much stronger form that the Court has used more recently to veto Biden administration policies.

[...] In 1984, less than six months before President Ronald Reagan won reelection in a landslide, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. Chevron dealt with a perennial problem that will arise in any system where a legislature delegates policymaking authority to government agencies like the EPA or the FDA. Sometimes, the federal law laying out an agency’s authority is ambiguous, and it’s not entirely clear whether the agency is allowed to regulate in the way that it wants. According to Chevron, courts should typically defer to an agency’s reading of a federal law if that law’s meaning is unclear. Such deference made sense, according to the Chevron opinion, for two reasons. The first is that “judges are not experts” in the wonky questions that often come before federal agencies. And it makes more sense to give the final say on questions of policy to experts, rather than to black-robed lawyers who may not know anything at all about, say, how much nitrogen should be discharged by a wastewater treatment plant. [...]

The Heroes Act, in other words, is the equivalent of a parent who told a babysitter to “make sure the kids have fun” while simultaneously handing the babysitter a guidebook on Disney vacations, a list of hotels near the park, and a set of Mickey Mouse ears for each of the children. All of which is a long way of saying that it is difficult to take the major questions doctrine seriously. The Court applies it in a haphazard way. It’s never settled upon an explanation for why this doctrine exists. And, when individual justices have attempted to offer such an explanation, their arguments cannot be squared with the Court’s actual decisions applying the major questions doctrine. Worse, the doctrine is part of a 40-year cycle where the Court read the power of agencies to set federal policy expansively while the Republican Party was politically ascendant, and then reined in the executive branch once it was controlled by Democrats. The whole point of decisions like Chevron is that they are supposed to prevent this kind of partisan behavior by judges. By instructing judges to stay out of policy matters that Congress delegated to a federal agency, regardless of whether that agency is led by a Democrat or a Republican, courts ensure that the voters will have the final word on federal policy, rather than a handful of lawyers in robes. But this Court does not believe in such deference, at least as long as Joe Biden is president.

The radical right-wing SCOTUS has essentially acted like a third legislative chamber, which makes the USA effectively a tricameral nation. Their rule has invented the "major questions doctrine" to impose their will on several issues, such as student loan forgiveness, COVID vaccine mandates, and environmental regulations.

[hypermania]

[ID:

Today, the Court flips the script: It is now “the courts (ra- ther than the agency)” that will wield power when Congress has left an area of interpretive discretion. A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris. In recent years, this Court has too often taken for itself decision-mak- ing authority Congress assigned to agencies. The Court has substituted its own judgment on workplace health for that of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; its own judgment on climate change for that of the Environ- mental Protection Agency; and its own judgment on student loans for that of the Department of Education. See, e.g., National Federation of Independent Business v. OSHA, 595 U. S. 109 (2022); West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U. S. 697 (2022); Biden v. Nebraska, 600 U. S. 477 (2023). But evidently that was, for this Court, all too piecemeal. In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—in- volving the meaning of regulatory law. As if it did not have enough on its plate, the majority turns itself into the coun- try’s administrative czar. It defends that move as one (sud- denly) required by the (nearly 80-year-old) Administrative Procedure Act. But the Act makes no such demand. To- day’s decision is not one Congress directed. It is entirely the majority’s choice. /end]

The Supreme Court just ruled that 1) criminalizing homelessness is OK and 2) the Chevron Deference doctrine is over. It’s hard to explain why, but believe it or not the second decision is going to have a far larger, far worse effect. The Chevron deference doctrine has been one of the foundations of the regulatory state for 40 years, and eliminating it gives the courts dramatically more power to interfere with regulations made by the government. Any and all regulations

[pscottm]

The Supreme Court is one of the most scientifically illiterate bodies in government, but why don’t we let it take over federal regulation? That is the basic question behind Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, scheduled for argument next month at the Supreme Court, and it should scare you. To those only recently paying attention, the court’s disdain for the scientific consensus, as evidenced in cases like West Virginia v. EPA, may seem surprising. However, even before the installation of its conservative supermajority, the court had long viewed scientific evidence that runs contrary to its policy preferences with contempt.

Skepticism of an inconvenient scientific consensus is nothing new for the Supreme Court, particularly for the conservatives. In Stanford v. Kentucky, the 1989 case on the constitutionality of capital punishment for 16- and 17-year-olds, Justice William Brennan pointed out the conservative majority’s “evident but misplaced disdain” for scientific evidence, particularly that of the social sciences. In Lockhart v. McCree, Justice William Rehnquist took it upon himself to disregard 14 of 15 submitted peer-reviewed studies, stating that the only reliable study happened to be the one that supported his position, contrary to the scientific consensus. Chief Justice John Roberts has gone so far as to call certain fields “sociological gobbledygook.”

[terrylturnipseed]

SCOTUS Reins in Federal Regulatory Power

The case West Virginia v. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) illustrates the approach of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to redefining federal regulatory powers. The case involved the Clean Power Plan (CPP), an EPA plan created during the Obama Administration requiring energy suppliers to abide by carbon emissions standards. A May 2023 article in the City University of New York's publication New Labor Forum reported that West Virginia v. EPA exemplifies SCOTUS's pattern in curbing federal regulatory power.

Under CPP mandates, power plants had to deploy emissions reduction technology and shift to alternative energy sources, like wind and solar power. In response, several states challenged the plan, saying the EPA overstepped its boundaries when mandating that power plants make these changes. During both the Obama and Trump administrations, the court stayed the case. However, the case became relevant after the Biden administration stated that it supported requiring power plants to shift to alternative energy sources.

SCOTUS issued a 6-3 ruling in June 2022, striking down the CPP mandate. The “major questions doctrine” was at the center of this ruling. The “major questions doctrine” is a principle in US administrative law that states federal agencies must receive permission from Congress to make significant political and economic decisions. It also indirectly tells Congress to speak clearly when it wants federal agencies to take action. In addition, this principle allows the Supreme Court to decide when an agency has the right to make major decisions.

In either case, SCOTUS decided that Congress did not give the EPA apparent authority to regulate emissions by shifting to alternative energy sources. While the time to comply has passed, the court issued a ruling anyway because the EPA could impose emissions limitations based on moving to alternative energies in the future.

This “major questions doctrine” was intended to return regulatory power to Congress, according to the May 2023 New Labor Forum. However, some believe that the doctrine will do more harm than good by restricting the work of the government simply by not allowing agencies to make important policy, economic, or political changes independently. At the same time, it might also prevent Congress from regulating private businesses effectively.

Another possible impact is that the doctrine might move the country's ideological stance to libertarian ideals, which favor reduced government interference. Whether this is a negative or positive impact depends on the individual's perspective.

Some believe the West Virginia v. EPA decision adversely impacts governance simply because Congress passes laws and gives powers to the president and the president’s administration (executive powers) to ensure laws work. However, most of the work that happens in government does so through agencies within the federal government. As American life has become more complicated, these agencies have taken on a more significant role in ensuring US citizens have the protections and rights guaranteed in the Constitution than in the past.

Also, some argue that this court decision (and SCOTUS) views the work of federal agencies almost as a threat to Congress's legislative powers (constitutional system). Additionally, the decision establishes precedence for other cases allowing the court to prevent an agency from acting when Congress has already given them the power to do so indirectly.

According to the May 2023 New Labor Forum article, the danger of the “major questions doctrine” is that it is vague. The doctrine relies on SCOTUS to decide what agency actions (political and economic) are significant and which ones are not. Without a clear definition and delineation of what is essential and what is not, justices on the court might look at a particular case and rule strategically in favor or against an economic or policy action. For example, a judge might use the doctrine as a deregulation platform to undo some of the work of Congress and federal agencies. While re-establishing Congress's authority this doctrine might not be so innocuous, possibly giving SCOTUS more power than the framers of the Constitution intended.

[mariacallous]

There is reason for optimism about the federal government stepping up to create a policy framework for artificial intelligence (AI) that will keep us safe while enabling innovations that will improve all our lives. Congressional activity to date has featured serious questions and bipartisan approaches. The White House has negotiated voluntary commitments by major AI players, designed to protect the public, with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charged with enforcing the commitments.

But, beneath the surface, there is a shark in the water, ready to obstruct any congressional or administrative action.

That shark is the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine.”

The Court pronounced the doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA, a 2022 decision invalidating the Obama-era EPA’s “Clean Power Plan.” The plan would require existing power plants to shift how they generate electricity. The EPA argued that Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which mandated the agency to identify and implement the “best system of emission reduction” from power plants, provided sufficient legal authority to adopt the plan.

The Court, however, said that the mandate was too broad and that “administrative agencies must be able to point to “clear congressional authorization” when they claim the power to make decisions of vast “economic and political significance.”

Justice Kagan, in dissent, noted the thin support for the doctrine, writing, “The majority claims it is just following precedent, but that is not so. The Court has never even used the term ‘major questions doctrine’ before.”

Our purpose is not to address the merits of the doctrine. Rather, we seek to analyze the implications of the doctrine to the fledging efforts to regulate AI.

Consider, for example, Senators Graham and Warren’s recently introduced legislation to create a Digital Consumer Protection Commission designed to, as they wrote in a New York Times op-ed, “prevent online harm, promote free speech and competition, guard Americans’ privacy and protect national security.”

Noting, “For more than a century, Congress has established regulatory agencies to preserve innovation while minimizing harm presented by emerging industries,” they justified creating such a commission on the grounds that “Congress is too slow, it lacks the tech expertise, and the army of Big Tech lobbyists can pick off individual efforts easier than shooting fish in a barrel.”

The proposed legislation, 158 pages long, mandates that the new agency undertake a wide spectrum of tasks, such as related to transparency, competition, privacy, and national security, among other topics. We generally support the legislation’s direction, as well as a similar proposal for a new agency introduced by Senators Bennet and Welch, as we think, just as with previous such commissions, the country needs an expert agency to balance the need to incent private investment and innovation with a need to protect the public.

But would the commission’s important actions under the law survive a major questions challenge?

The truth is we don’t know.

The more important truth is nobody knows.

No one knows because, in its decision, the Court offered vague standards for what constitutes a major question. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, said the doctrine should only be used in “extraordinary cases.” Yet, in the only 18 months since the decision, the Court majority used the doctrine to override agency actions related to housing, vaccinations, and student loans.