MSNBC appears to be fed up after another week of conservative Supreme Court victories. The guests on Thursday treated the Court slapping down the authority of the EPA as a “scary,” “extreme” decision that is a “loss for America” and “the world.”
Reacting like this was an administrative version of overturning Roe v. Wade, guest Paul Butler compared, “Just like overturning Roe vs. Wade was a carefully planned decades long effort of the far right, this case also comes out of a long-term project by conservatives to limit the power of government agencies.”
The six conservatives ruled in a 6-3 vote that Congress has retained the ability to regulate greenhouse gasses. Guest Joyce Vance (a law professor) complained, “This is a big loss for the Biden administration, but also for the country.” Guest Neal Katyal escalated, “I don’t think it’s right to think of it as a loss for the Biden administration. It is an American loss. It’s also a loss for the rest of the world.”
As though quoting from on high, Katyal read from Elena Kagan’s dissent:
To give an indication of the severity and danger of this decision, I will read the final words of Justice Kagan’s dissension in the case. She says, quote, “The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling. No matter how much else the Court knows, it doesn’t have any clues about climate change. And let’s say the obvious, the stakes here are high, yet the Court prevents congressionally-authorized action to curb carbon dioxide emissions. It is the Court that appoints climate policy decisions, and not Congress. It is hard to imagine anything more terrifying. Respectfully, I dissent.”
Liberty Mutual sponsored the liberal panic on MSNBC. To let Liberty Mutual know your thoughts, click the link.
Here is a portion of the transcript. Click “expand” to read more.
Jose Diaz-Balart Reports
6/30/2022
JOSE DIAZBALART : Let us focus on West Virginia versus EPA. I know that you’ve been studying that. How does this affect the future and what is it all about?
JOYCE VAANCE (Univ. JOYCE VAANCE (Univ. This is a discussion about the limits imposed on coal use and the move to cleaner sources of energy that are incentivized by the government. Jose, I want to make it clear that Jose was right. This case did not require the Court to rule. Biden had admitted that it was not going to put the law back in use that states had challenged. Market forces, however, had already put the provision into place, pushing businesses towards the change that would benefit the environment. The Court ruled to hear the case.
case, nonetheless. This is a sign of how wide its reach it will go, as this is part the conservative agenda to dismantle what they call “the nanny state” and limit the federal government’s ability to do meaningful work for the public. It means there will be less work for areas such as public health or the economy. This is not only a huge loss for Biden’s administration but for our country as a whole.
DIAZ-BALART It is a result of the Clean Air Act 1963. Continued Joyce’s explanation: What are the true repercussions?
NEAL KATYAL is an ex-acting U.S. The matter is extremely important. Jose, that’s an opinion of 89 pages. In the final six minutes, I had just started reading it. It is a serious, significant loss to climate regulation, I believe. It’s not a loss to Biden. In a full-throated decision of the Chief Justice, I believe it is a loss to the federal government’s ability regulate climate change. Let me give you an indication of the severity and danger of this decision by reading Justice Kagan’s final dissent. She says, quote, “The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling. No matter how much else the Court knows, it doesn’t have any clues about climate change. And let’s say the obvious, the stakes here are high, yet the Court prevents congressionally-authorized action to curb carbon dioxide emissions. It is the Court that appoints climate policy decisions, and not Congress. It is hard to imagine anything more alarming. Respectfully, I dissent.” I think that tells us just how significant this decision is. This decision does not only remove a federal power, but also removes a control over climate regulation. It is a matter that the Supreme Court described 15 years earlier as the “most pressing environmental issue of our times.” Jose, this is in combination with earlier decisions regarding abortion and guns as the most extreme result of the U.S. Supreme Court. This is not a loss to the Biden administration, and I will repeat that. It is an American loss. It’s also a loss for the rest of the world.
DIAZ-BALART : Katharine Hayhoe is the chief scientist at Nature Conservancy. And Professor of Politics at Texas Tech University. We are grateful for your presence, Doctor. What’s your reaction to this?
KATHARINE HAYHOE, The Nature Conservancy Chief Scientist: The legalities may seem complicated. The harmful effects are clear. This makes it more challenging to tackle the climate and pollution crises.
…
DIAZ-BALART : Paul Butler. I would like to keep going with your thoughts. Before you announced this decision, we were hearing from you. What’s your reaction now that you have seen it?
PAUL BUTLER (Former Federal Prosecutor): Jose. This case concerned the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to perform its most crucial job of fighting climate change. As if this wasn’t enough, the Court’s decision today has other significant consequences. As Roe vs. Wade, which was an effort by far-right extremists for decades, was overturned today, so is this case. This case stems from a long-term conservative project to reduce the government’s power. The Court could also have ruled only on Jose’s issue about whether the EPA has the authority to control carbon emissions. The court could go extreme like Roe vs. Wade. In the coming minutes and hours lawyers will carefully examine the court’s words to determine if they have gone too far, as the short reading suggests, or if they are more limited in their interpretation of this provision.
About Post Author
