Their accompanies MSNBC: Come comrades!, CNN became unmoored Thursday morning in their reactions to the Supreme Court dealing a blow to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority in regulating greenhouse gas emissions, arguing the Court doesn’t want to save Earth by “addressing climate change” and leveled “a blow” to the “administrative state.”
Jessica Schneider, Justice correspondent, complained about the decision “really a blow to the Biden administration the EPA moving forward” and “major takedown of the administration” in that they won’t be able to “broadly regulate power plants” As well as the rob agencies “given carte blanche to regulate.”
Just graduated from law school CNN Newsroom co-host Poppy Harlow asked national correspondent Renee Marsh to “talk to people about the actual implications of this” since, on the same day of oral arguments, “the U.N…said any further delay in addressing climate change will miss a brief and closing window of opportunity to secure a livable, sustainable future for all.”
Marsh did not have the same status as Bill. “F***sticks” Weir, but she was still firmly in Chicken Little territory as she implied the ruling will prevent the EPA from thwarting the affects of “climate change here” and “now” in the form of droughts, flooding, heat waves, and wildfires.
“[W]hat this ruling does is it takes away the most effective tool for the EPA to curb those greenhouses gases and that is emissions from these power plants,”Elle added.
Marsh lamented that the Supreme Court ruling is equivalent to Marsh’s. “saying you can cut the grass but we’re taking away your lawnmower, so get out your scissors, EPA.”
Showing no concern for our constitutional republic, Marsh decried the idea that the EPA couldn’t take steps it would deem necessary to change how Americans live their lives (click “expand”):
MARSH: The EPA has been — has had this posture that they will find ways to continue to curb greenhouse gases, but I have to say this is — it makes it just very difficult for them to do this job of curbing these gases in such a dramatic way that scientists have been sounding the alarm that we need to do and not like over the next 25 years, like, right now. This makes it even more challenging. And Poppy —
HARLOW: Yeah?
MARSH: — the one other thing I want to mention is just the idea of giving this authority to Congress. I mean, we have seen what that — what that looks like and we have seen what that means. Take a look at Biden’s climate legislation. The Congress has stalled it.
HARLOW: That — yeah.
MARSH: So this idea of giving Congress the authority to me is the equivalent of not doing anything —
HARLOW: Anything.
MARSH: — because you certainly have seen that there’s not enough political will there to get that sort of drastic and dramatic regulation over the line, Poppy.
HARLOW
Harlow, chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and genital fondler Jeffrey Toobin, also defined congressional action or inaction as a liberal wishlist. “Congress does have the ability to codify an abortion right, for example. Congress can expressly say that the EPA is authorized to regulate climate change issues. It just hasn’t acted.”
Toobin also had a case of the sads, griping that the notion of restoring power to the legislative branch was “a feature, not a bug” of “conservatives in the Federalist Society” and the conservative-leaning justices to ensure climate change isn’t dealt with.
“[B]ecause the climate is an international crisis, and when the Court says the only agency that has the expertise and ability to address climate change can’t do it, it means that it will not be done by anyone or any part of government,”He concluded.
Longtime Court observer Joan Biskupic was also in the throes of negativity, lamenting the Supreme Court’s been “stripping regulatory authority from the federal government” while many have been “focused…on what this Court has done to individual rights, especially with abortion.”
Sounding Tom Nichols-like in calling for bureaucrats to control our lives, Biskupic said it’s been “a major emphasis” of “the three Trump appointees” to strip power from those with “expertise in certain areas — you know, environment, public safety, labor issues…that Congress lacks.”
CNN’s political director David Chalian spoke more about Team Biden, extolling that “President Biden is an institutionalist at heart,” so the Court’s rulings have left him in a state of “real concern” because they’re “not..in line with the views of the American people.”
Chalian was critical of the EPA decision. “the ruling…really sort of put handcuffs on the Biden administration to attack what is one of the major priorities of this presidency.”
After a break, Harlow and University of Texas’s Steve Vladeck wondered if Thursday’s ruling spells doom for ensuring that food plants are inspected for cleanliness and safety (click “expand”):
HARLOW: [T]Jessica asked a big question, and it is the correct one. And the major questions doctrine has now three times this term tied the hands of agencies —
VLADECK: Yes
HARLOW: — like OHSA from being able to have a vaccine mandate, like the CDC from having an eviction moratorium and now from the EPA to do things to mitigate climate change. Is this — what — what isn’t a big question? Going forward, I’m asking if the doctrine of major questions will now determine what agencies can or cannot do.
VLADECK, Poppy: The answer to that question is yes. I believe it is an understatement to say that this is a catastrophe for modern administration state. Not necessarily because all questions are major, but because each case can have a legal hearing. The U.S. Department of Agriculture sets inspection standards for food plants. This is a big question. Although we might not believe so, it is a major question if we are talking about beef. How many Americans eat beef? What a major question, Poppy, is what a judge says it is and that opens the door for not just the Supreme Court, but for lower Court judges now to turn around —
HARLOW: Right.
VLADECK: — and look at every single feature of federal administrative regulation and say, oh, this delegation’s not sufficiently specific because this is a major question.
CNN’s meltdown over an unelected bureaucracy being able to exert full control over your life was made possible thanks to advertisers such as IHOP and ServPro. Follow the links to see their contact information at the MRC’s Conservatives Fight Back page.
Click here to see the CNN transcript relevant from June 30.
About Post Author
