• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Congress blesses off EPA power-grab

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
63,904
Reaction score
32,555
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
the Murkowski Amendment, which would have blocked the EPA from declaring CO2 to be a regulated substance (in violation of their own charter), has failed. The EPA is now free to impose de-facto cap-and-trade without forcing Democratic Party leadership into another brutal fight which would have made them even less popular.

now, this is objectively going to destroy jobs; but whatever helps Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama in the short term is far more important than whether or not those bible-and-gun-clingers are actually having jobs or just collecting endless government benefits.

as Daniel Foster put it: i never want to hear a left-winger complain about Executive Power ever again.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,231
Reaction score
32,370
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Things can destroy jobs and still be the right thing to do. Our current habits are dumping a massive environmental debt onto our future generations.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
FWIW, it's not really an agency power grab if its authorized by Congress.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FWIW, it's not really an agency power grab if its authorized by Congress.
Congress did not really ever authorize it, the EPA just announced that is what they were going to do, and Congress was unable to get it together enough to block this action. I don't see that as the same as congressional authorization.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Congress did not really ever authorize it, the EPA just announced that is what they were going to do, and Congress was unable to get it together enough to block this action. I don't see that as the same as congressional authorization.
Fair point.
 

NolaMan

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
808
Reaction score
203
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually I seem to recall the supreme court told them to. Am I remembering that wrong?
I don't recall that, but maybe.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Actually I seem to recall the supreme court told them to. Am I remembering that wrong?
The SC case was about whether a statute required the EPA to set some guidelines for CO2. The EPA said it didn't have the authority to do so, MA said it did. The SC said that under the guidelines that were in place, CO2 fell within the category of things for which the EPA had to set guidelines.

I believe this was an attempt by Congress to amend the underlying statute or regulation to eliminate that requirement, on the theory that Congress had never intended this in the first place.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,231
Reaction score
32,370
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The SC case was about whether a statute required the EPA to set some guidelines for CO2. The EPA said it didn't have the authority to do so, MA said it did. The SC said that under the guidelines that were in place, CO2 fell within the category of things for which the EPA had to set guidelines.

I believe this was an attempt by Congress to amend the underlying statute or regulation to eliminate that requirement, on the theory that Congress had never intended this in the first place.
Yeah, that's about what I remembered. My point being that the EPA wasn't really in charge of the decision to regulate CO2 emissions. They themselves said "Hey we can't do this." Not really sure I'd describe this as a "power-grab" by the EPA. More like a "well I guess we're the ones who are supposed to do this."
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah, that's about what I remembered. My point being that the EPA wasn't really in charge of the decision to regulate CO2 emissions. They themselves said "Hey we can't do this." Not really sure I'd describe this as a "power-grab" by the EPA. More like a "well I guess we're the ones who are supposed to do this."
Just because they "can" doesn't mean they should. And this is most certainly a case of "Don't".
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,231
Reaction score
32,370
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just because they "can" doesn't mean they should. And this is most certainly a case of "Don't".
Uhh, no, in this particular case they were ordered to by a statute.
 

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
23,745
Reaction score
7,654
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
the Murkowski Amendment, which would have blocked the EPA from declaring CO2 to be a regulated substance (in violation of their own charter), has failed. The EPA is now free to impose de-facto cap-and-trade without forcing Democratic Party leadership into another brutal fight which would have made them even less popular.

now, this is objectively going to destroy jobs; but whatever helps Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama in the short term is far more important than whether or not those bible-and-gun-clingers are actually having jobs or just collecting endless government benefits.

as Daniel Foster put it: i never want to hear a left-winger complain about Executive Power ever again.
Nightmare.

This will be abused, just as the inter-state commerce law has been.
Just as the parliamentary move, never intended for the pupose was used to shove hObamaKare down our throats.

Now the EPA, with unelected bureaucrats, not responding to any electorate will be able to run rough shod over the entire economy.
It's not just Cap and Tax, Tax, Tax... just wait until they unleash the brutality of it. It can hit everything.

This is tragic.

.
 

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, if the Republicans had supported sensible energy legislation it could have been avoided but instead they filibustered. And, BTW, remember it was the Supreme Court that said the EPA had to regulate based on published findings during the Bush administration about damage greenhouse gases were causing to the environment.
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,222
Reaction score
14,219
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Hopefully congress will make the right decision regarding the EPA, CO2, and climate change when Republicans are in power. I can't believe so many are willing to kill jobs and cripple economic growth over a scary non issue.
 
Top Bottom