Congress blesses off EPA power-grab

[cpwill]

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]

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]

FWIW, it's not really an agency power grab if its authorized by Congress.

 

[NolaMan]

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]

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.

 

[Deuce]

Fair point.

Actually I seem to recall the supreme court told them to. Am I remembering that wrong?

 

[NolaMan]

Actually I seem to recall the supreme court told them to. Am I remembering that wrong?

I don't recall that, but maybe.

 

[RightinNYC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.