In his long and thorough treatment of the latest from the abominable bamster, Fred Singer holds out hope the SCOTUS will stop the EPA overreach on stationary sources and carbon dioxide emission controls.
Sorry Fred, ain’t gonna happen.
Sorry I can’t put up the usual pictures of big plumes of steam coming out of stacks.
Even conservative sources are doing it, just like they casually talk about McCarthy as a bad guy when he was a hero and exposed the commies.
Lazy conservatives do things like that. Lazy, supposed conservative judges hand the tyrants the keys to the car by saying they will restrain themselves and allow one branch to take over the duties of another branch. Delegation by the Congress and discretion for the agency are what the totalitarians want. We have a dictator in the White House with a pen and a phone.
So why will Fred be disappointed? Actually I wrote why almost ten years ago. And Nino was my target–Mr. Originalist, Mr. Judicial Restraint. And the issue was Baron de Montesquieu’s advice on governance–keep the executive and the legislative separate.
Nino fell asleep during that discussion.
Democrat judges are totalitarians so they were awake, and they hate representative republics with separation of powers, they are utopians who want control so the can tell people how to live and what to do in pursuit of their utopian collective.
In the Nino world Congress can delegate to agencies the authority and power to make rules and regs, the Congress abdicates.
In the Nino world, an agency can have discretion not only to interpret ambiguous statutory language, but discretion that eliminates any meaning of the enabling words arbitrary and capricious from the Administrative Procedure Act.
So Nino casts the vote that eliminates any challenges of agency decisions on the issue of inadequate justification which is known in the legal world as actions that are arbitrary and capricious. In the Nino world arbitrary and capricious is trumped by discretion. Agency actions without good justification or rational, on a whim, without good reason are just discretionary, not subject to challenge.
As one of the DC Circuit judges said at the hearing–to paraphrase, “you’re not going to talk about science, are you?”
Here’s my essay on the junk science put up by Jon Samet on air pollution:
Here’s how Justice Antonin Scalia handed us a loss on the American Trucking Case:
Nino, following the Chevron case rational on agency discretion, gave the EPA discretion to do anything that they wanted to, which means, since they are an executive branch, Article II agency, they make the President a dictator by regulation.
Part II on legal precedents that allow delegation and discretion.
more on the delegation/discretion problem
So here we are with the case that has Fred hoping, and Fred deserves a better challenge:
Consolidated cases Utility Group v EPA