Death To America – She Doesn’t Look Iranian But DC Judges May Reward EPA Fraud, Economic Sabotage
Indications are that a legal challenge to the EPA’s draconian carbon regulations may be dismissed by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals as premature, with two of the three judges hearing the case indicating that they were leaning in that direction.
Two challenges are being brought, one by a coalition of 15 states which depend heavily upon coal for their energy and another by Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp., the nation’s largest privately held coal mining company. After nearly two hours of arguments on Thursday, two of the three judges on the federal appeals court panel expressed doubts about the challenges on the basis that the EPA rules had not yet been finalized.
Judges Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh seemed to agree with EPA position, not that the cases did not have merit, but that the timing was off and in spite of costs associated with preparations for the mandates, the process was getting ahead of itself.
They did not argue the core issue of whether the EPA has the legal authority for its dictates under the Clean Air Act, nor that the plaintiffs were incorrect in their claims that many jobs would disappear and that the resulting coal plant closures would force electricity rates to skyrocket. Those are realities which are not disputed even by the EPA although they do ridiculously understate their impact.
Judge Griffith told Elbert Lin, the attorney representing West Virginia and other states in their lawsuit, “Typically, we’re not in the business of guessing what the final rule would look like.” He added, “You’re inviting us into a morass.” Judge Kavanaugh agreed, stating it would be “highly unusual.”
Lin argued that there is no reason to delay the matter, as the EPA has declared the content of the rule and the states are already expending huge sums of money in compliance efforts. He noted that waiting until summer does not in any way alter the unconstitutional nature of the mandates.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, the third judge on the panel acknowledged the financial costs which the states are already bearing in preparation and the lengthy time period involved for compliance efforts, stating, “That’s an extraordinary type of cost right now.”
The rule was drafted by outside, non-governmental environmental lobbyists with the EPA putting their rubber stamp of approval and authorship to the anti-energy regulations, which call for a 30 percent reduction in emissions by the year 2030. The only way to meet those dictates is to close power plants. The result will be less cheap energy, less energy in general, and a higher percentage of the energy produced being obtained from more expensive, less efficient sources.
Judge Griffith later asked DOJ lawyer Brian Lynk about comments made by the EPA administrator stating that there would be no change following the public comment period, asking, “What do we do with statements that there will be no change?” He asked if the public comment period was a “sham.”
The judge is absolutely correct that the public comment period is a sham, but he’s still thinking too small. The entire EPA is a fraud.
CNSNews reported that “West Virginia and other states argue that the plan to regulate carbon emissions from power plants is illegal because the EPA already regulates other power plant pollutants under a different section of the Clean Air Act,” that the resulting “double regulation” violates the law.
They also noted a jurisdictional debate between the upper and lower chambers of Congress, over provisions added to the Clean Air Act in 1990, with a Senate version being more friendly to the EPA than that of the House.
Geoffrey Barnes, attorney for Murray Energy, likened the problem to a clerical error and argued that the House version should prevail. He said the EPA can’t simply roll out an entirely new way of interpreting a law because that is Congress’ role.
Judge Griffith said “there’s no mistake here … you have two conflicting provisions.” Under Supreme Court precedent, “when Congress passes conflicting statutes, we let the agency decide” how to interpret the law. Letting this rogue agency decide anything is a huge mistake and one that the EPA attorney Amanda Berman, quickly seized upon. Berman contended that if there is even “a scintilla of a shred” of ambiguity, the EPA can interpret the law as they see fit.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) went on the record last month in a letter urging the governors of all fifty states to defy the federal bureaucrats and to refuse to submit compliance plans.
Thirteen states and the District of Columbia support the tyrants at the EPA and the Obama administration.
It seems that the logical course of action, at least in the short term, is for the governors each state to act in a constitutional manner, making their own decisions as to their actions, whether to impose economic suicide or to allow their citizens to exercise their own free will as sovereign Americans.
In the mean time, Congress can clarify the confusion, and if they truly want to fix the problem, eliminate the EPA. Preventing self-destructive acts of sabotage by rogue government agencies shouldn’t be controversial. The House and Senate have the power to eliminate the domestic terror being waged upon our nation by the EPA. They simply need to take the appropriate legislative action on behalf of the American people they represent. We’ve had more than a belly-full of this EPA nonsense.
Rick Wells is a conservative writer who recognizes that our nation, our Constitution and our traditions are under a full scale assault from multiple threats. Please “Like” him on Facebook, “Follow” him on Twitter or visit www.rickwells.us
Total Views: 103 ,
No comments:
Post a Comment