After another week of conservative Supreme Court wins, MSNBC seems to have had enough. The guests on Thursday treated the Court slapping down the authority of the EPA as a “scary,” “extreme” decision that is a “loss for America” and “the world.”
Reacting like this was an administrative version of overturning Roe v. Wade, guest Paul Butler compared, “Just like overturning Roe vs. Wade was a carefully planned decades long effort of the far right, this case also comes out of a long-term project by conservatives to limit the power of government agencies.”
In a 6-3 ruling, all six conservatives said that Congress and not the EPA retains the right to regulate greenhouse gasses. Guest Joyce Vance (a law professor) complained, “This is a big loss for the Biden administration, but also for the country.” Guest Neal Katyal escalated, “I don't think it's right to think of it as a loss for the Biden administration. It's a loss for America. It's a loss for the world.”
As though quoting from on high, Katyal read from Elena Kagan’s dissent:
Just to give you a sense of how dangerous and scary the decision is, let me read to you the last words of Justice Kagan's dissent in the case. She says, quote, “The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court's intervention all the more troubling. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let's say the obvious, the stakes here are high, yet the Court prevents congressionally-authorized action to curb carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself rather than Congress, the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent.”
The liberal freak out on MSNBC was sponsored by Liberty Mutual. Click on the link to let them know what you think.
A partial transcript is below. Click “expand” to read more.
Jose Diaz-Balart Reports
6/30/2022
JOSE DIAZ-BALART: Let's focus in on West Virginia versus EPA. I know that you’ve been studying that. What are the repercussions of this and what does it mean?
JOYCE VANCE (Univ. Of Alabama School of Law professor): The repercussions are broader than just this ruling which restricts the EPA's ability to engage in meaningful climate change protective work. Here, we're talking about limits being imposed essentially on using coal and the shift to more climate-friendly sources of power incentivized by the government. Let me point out, Jose, this was a case that the Court did not have to decide. The Biden administration had acknowledged that it did not intend to put back into use the provision that the states were challenging because market forces had already, in essence, put that provision into effect, pushing companies toward that shift that would benefit the environment. The Court decided to hear the
case, nonetheless. That's a good signal to how far its reach will be, because this is part of the conservative agenda of dismantling what they call the nanny state and limiting the ability of the federal government and executive branch agencies to work in meaningful work on behalf of the public. That means less work that can be undertaken in places like public health and the economy. This is a big loss for the Biden administration, but also for the country.
DIAZ-BALART: And let's talk about that. It has a lot to do with the Clean Air Act of 1963. What are, continuing with Joyce's explanation, what are the real repercussions of this decision?
NEAL KATYAL (former acting U.S. Solicitor General): It is incredibly major. So, it's an 89-page opinion, Jose. I started to read it in the last six minutes. And I will say -- I'll say to you just everything I've read so far, and obviously we'll have to study it more, suggests a major, major loss for climate regulation. I don't think of it as a loss for Biden or anything . I think it's a loss for the federal government's ability to regulate climate change in a 6-3 fully-throated decision by the Chief Justice. Just to give you a sense of how dangerous and scary the decision is, let me read to you the last words of Justice Kagan's dissent in the case. She says, quote, “The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court's intervention all the more troubling. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let's say the obvious, the stakes here are high, yet the Court prevents congressionally-authorized action to curb carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself rather than Congress, the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent.” I think that tells us just how significant this decision is. Not just in removing a power from the federal government, but removing a power over climate regulation, what the Supreme Court earlier, 15 years ago, described as one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. This is, you know, in conjunction with the earlier decisions on abortion and guns, as extreme a result from the U.S. Supreme court as in our lifetimes, Jose. And I repeat, I don't think it's right to think of it as a loss for the Biden administration. It's a loss for America. It's a loss for the world.
DIAZ-BALART: I want to bring in Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy. And professor of political science at Texas Tech University. Doctor, thank you for being with us. What’s your reaction to this?
KATHARINE HAYHOE (The Nature Conservancy Chief Scientist): Well, the legalities of the case may be complex. But the harmful impacts are crystal clear. It makes it even more difficult to address the pollution and the climate crises.
...
DIAZ-BALART: Paul Butler, I want to continue with your thoughts. You were telling us what your perspective was before on announcing this decision. Now that you see it, what's your reaction?
PAUL BUTLER (Former federal prosecutor): Jose, this case was about the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to do its most important job, fighting climate change. And if that wasn't important enough, there are other seismic consequences to the Court's ruling today. Just like overturning Roe vs. Wade was a carefully planned decades long effort of the far right, this case also comes out of a long-term project by conservatives to limit the power of government agencies. And, Jose, the Court could have gone narrow and just ruled on the issue before it, about the power of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions. Or the court could have gone extreme, like it did with Roe vs. Wade. And so in the next minutes and hours, what we lawyers will be doing is looking carefully at the words of the court to see whether they've gone extreme as, again, the brief reading I've done suggests they did, or whether they're more narrow in how they interpreted this provision.
