Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

SCOTUS: We're Cool with Global Warming/Climate Change

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
bmw
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: SCOTUS: We're Cool with Global Warming/Climate Change

Post by bmw » Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:31 pm

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:54 pm
The judicial branch has no power over the EPA. The executive branch sets policy.
If you graduated High School, then whoever taught you how government works sure did a shitty job. Congress sets EPA policy, not the President.

Perhaps you should read the EPA's own "Basics of the Regulatory Process" as a starting point in educating yourself.

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/ba ... ry-process

I'll simplify it for you in case you don't understand it.

Step 1 - Congress writes a bill.
Step 2 - The President signs the bill into law
Step 3 - The EPA, through the powers given to it by Congress, writes regulations to flesh out the details of the bill described in Steps 1 and 2 above.

When the EPA writes regulations outside the bounds of what is authorized in the law they're trying to flesh out, the Supreme Court can strike down said regulations, as was the case here. In this case, the EPA wrote regulations outside the bounds of what was authorized in the Clean Air Act, and those regulations got struck down.

This really isn't all that complicated.



MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 6409
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: SCOTUS: We're Cool with Global Warming/Climate Change

Post by MotorCityRadioFreak » Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:21 pm

bmw wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:31 pm
MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:54 pm
The judicial branch has no power over the EPA. The executive branch sets policy.
If you graduated High School, then whoever taught you how government works sure did a shitty job. Congress sets EPA policy, not the President.

Perhaps you should read the EPA's own "Basics of the Regulatory Process" as a starting point in educating yourself.

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/ba ... ry-process

I'll simplify it for you in case you don't understand it.

Step 1 - Congress writes a bill.
Step 2 - The President signs the bill into law
Step 3 - The EPA, through the powers given to it by Congress, writes regulations to flesh out the details of the bill described in Steps 1 and 2 above.

When the EPA writes regulations outside the bounds of what is authorized in the law they're trying to flesh out, the Supreme Court can strike down said regulations, as was the case here. In this case, the EPA wrote regulations outside the bounds of what was authorized in the Clean Air Act, and those regulations got struck down.

This really isn't all that complicated.
So, regardless, the judicial branch does NOT set policy.


They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.

bmw
Posts: 6729
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: SCOTUS: We're Cool with Global Warming/Climate Change

Post by bmw » Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:27 pm

They didn't set a policy. They struck down regulations that were outside the bounds of an existing policy.



MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 6409
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: SCOTUS: We're Cool with Global Warming/Climate Change

Post by MotorCityRadioFreak » Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:30 pm

They DID change policy. They disallowed the continued progress for net zero emissions by 2035. They stalled it out.


They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: SCOTUS: We're Cool with Global Warming/Climate Change

Post by audiophile » Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:39 pm

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:30 pm
They DID change policy. They disallowed the continued progress for net zero emissions by 2035. They stalled it out.
We cannot get to net zero by 2035. It is foolish to force that artificially.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 6409
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: SCOTUS: We're Cool with Global Warming/Climate Change

Post by MotorCityRadioFreak » Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:56 am

audiophile wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:39 pm
MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:30 pm
They DID change policy. They disallowed the continued progress for net zero emissions by 2035. They stalled it out.
We cannot get to net zero by 2035. It is foolish to force that artificially.
What’s even more foolish is taking a stance back a decade ago of fighting activist judges and then now embracing such behavior. That’s what I see from the GOP.


They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.

Matt
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: SCOTUS: We're Cool with Global Warming/Climate Change

Post by Matt » Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:07 am

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:56 am
audiophile wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:39 pm
MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:30 pm
They DID change policy. They disallowed the continued progress for net zero emissions by 2035. They stalled it out.
We cannot get to net zero by 2035. It is foolish to force that artificially.
What’s even more foolish is taking a stance back a decade ago of fighting activist judges and then now embracing such behavior. That’s what I see from the GOP.
The activist judges are the three liberals. Try again.


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

km1125
Posts: 3570
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: SCOTUS: We're Cool with Global Warming/Climate Change

Post by km1125 » Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:50 am

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:56 am
audiophile wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:39 pm
MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:30 pm
They DID change policy. They disallowed the continued progress for net zero emissions by 2035. They stalled it out.
We cannot get to net zero by 2035. It is foolish to force that artificially.
What’s even more foolish is taking a stance back a decade ago of fighting activist judges and then now embracing such behavior. That’s what I see from the GOP.
Activist judges make legislative policy where none existed.



MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 6409
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: SCOTUS: We're Cool with Global Warming/Climate Change

Post by MotorCityRadioFreak » Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:27 pm

km1125 wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:50 am
MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:56 am
audiophile wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:39 pm
MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Fri Jul 01, 2022 6:30 pm
They DID change policy. They disallowed the continued progress for net zero emissions by 2035. They stalled it out.
We cannot get to net zero by 2035. It is foolish to force that artificially.
What’s even more foolish is taking a stance back a decade ago of fighting activist judges and then now embracing such behavior. That’s what I see from the GOP.
Activist judges make legislative policy where none existed.
Exactly!

https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/clare ... a40b6b826d


They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.

paul8539
Posts: 1108
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS: We're Cool with Global Warming/Climate Change

Post by paul8539 » Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:08 pm

If the EPA doesn't control it, then who does?



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic