The Supreme Court is hearing a case against EPA that is both absurd and terrifyingly significant. At stake is the agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Is the outcome going to be bad ... or super-bad? I consult with two experts.
On the question at the end of the podcast about why the authorities that EPA has under the Clean Air Act couldn’t be bolstered in a reconciliation package, I’m not the Senate Parliamentarian, but that’s where the issue would lie. Reconciliation (the vehicle for passing Build Back Better or any 50 vote bill) has to be focused on budgetary issues, so you can’t just stick in an authority issue. This is also why the CEPP was completely redesigned for BBB to be all about financial incentives and penalties, instead of issuing targets/emissions rules.
Might some brave soul take it upon themself to summarize this excellent discussion, perhaps as major headlines with key bullet points? Something like this, perhaps:
Why this case is absurd and should never have been accepted by SCOTUS
• The policy being litigated does not actually exist.
• Clearly SCOTUS is being asked to issue an "advisory opinion", which it is not supposed to do.
On the question at the end of the podcast about why the authorities that EPA has under the Clean Air Act couldn’t be bolstered in a reconciliation package, I’m not the Senate Parliamentarian, but that’s where the issue would lie. Reconciliation (the vehicle for passing Build Back Better or any 50 vote bill) has to be focused on budgetary issues, so you can’t just stick in an authority issue. This is also why the CEPP was completely redesigned for BBB to be all about financial incentives and penalties, instead of issuing targets/emissions rules.
Might some brave soul take it upon themself to summarize this excellent discussion, perhaps as major headlines with key bullet points? Something like this, perhaps:
Why this case is absurd and should never have been accepted by SCOTUS
• The policy being litigated does not actually exist.
• Clearly SCOTUS is being asked to issue an "advisory opinion", which it is not supposed to do.
etc.