The Supreme Court ruled Thursday on a high-profile case centered on the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
Yes, but what did the ruling say? Narrow? Broad? The background here is useful and well-presented, but it’s not so helpful to note that there was a decision without reportage of what the decision means. Thanks.
Substantive non-due process. Seems the Founders were smog fans and wanted us to all suffer COPD, emphysema and pulmonary adenocarcinoma. But none of that existed in 1789. That don’t stop Clarence and Crew from divining that the real plan was the destruction of the world.
I like to think I am not naive but I just don’t understand the GOP attitude towards the environment. These people have children and grandchildren. How can they just not care?
The elites in the party stand to make a lot of money from this sort of stuff. They believe that this money will allow them to insulate themselves from most/all of the environmental devastation that these policies will cause.
The grassroots has been convinced - they truly believe - that this is all a hoax orchestrated by [insert your villain(s) of choice]. It is easy to not care when you really believe that the bad effects aren’t happening, aren’t going to happen, and anyone who says otherwise is whatever you hate.
Not sure why the court even bothers with oral arguments, legal briefs, or long written opinions - the outcomes are predetermined and immutable. “Because we say so” is the bottom line.
There was an ad on television last night for some snake-oil product that started with a statement that “Experts believe the first person to reach age 150 has already been born.” And my reaction was “What about all of us who aren’t Peter Thiel?” So anyway, congrats to the Supreme Court for arbitrarily picking and choosing whatever the Federalist Society’s funders are into or opposed to this week.