A request from Gregg Philips from TS. Unite in prayer —> imminent SCOTUS EPA ruling
(media.communities.win)
✝️ Prayer Request 🕊️
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (82)
sorted by:
Even though the case is against the EPA, a broad ruling could apply to EVERY federal agency. It's possible that SCOTUS rules that congress doesn't have the authority to delegate its own authority to federal agencies. They actually have to make all the laws themselves. This would gut the federal government over night and be the biggest win for states rights in basically ever.
Ever ever.
Right before the “what’s a woman” gets into the bench.
I am still hoping that one won’t get there, maybe the other guy will say ‘ Nah I’m staying for a bit more ... ‘ 😂
Yeah, because theyll actually have to return all that law making to the states. State could never produce that much law.
So...can Congress delegate its authority to central bankers?
If this actually goes, the People will win so bigly. Stealthy AF. Makes you think it would be part of some sort of plan.
ATF.... no more made up gun laws??
this article was posted the other day: https://www.eenews.net/articles/supreme-court-climate-case-might-end-regulation/
it will decide if the EPA writing (and enforcing) rules is constitutional. (hint: it's NOT).
Federal agencies are effectively the Legislature (which is accountable to the People) outsourcing law-making to unelected bureaucrats. if all the bureaucracies running our lives through "rule and regulations" are found unconstitutional..... imagine the opportunity.
Until someone with a better answer shows up.
The EPA comes up with all those rules about what can be built and where, so, for example, where I live they were going to build a 70-floor high-rise building, but the environmental agency comes out and tells them that they have to cap the building at 58 floors or the shadow on the river will cool the water down too much and potentially harm the fish. So, the whole building has to be redesigned after it's already 2/3 built.
Those tyrannical bastards! Pretty soon they are going to be the endangered species!
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXu1Ph00/new-sc-case-coming--this-could-b/c/
I want to hear it too..
Think about it, we are subject to so many laws and things that NEVER went thru congress as a,result of these agencies. So essentially taxation without representation. FAUCI, CDC, FDA... these people aren't elected and can serve for decades making them the definition of deep state and answerable to no one
Oh, got it now what this is about, thank you.
Iirc this is the one that basically says unelected agencies cannot dictate policy. So if they go down, potentially SEC, ATF, IRS, etc will all come down too.
I would so like this to come about, so much. I pray that God will turn the court justices hearts away from evil and that truth will be their lodestone.
To elaborate on why it's not just the EPA but all federal agencies:
Article II of the Constitution says that law making is the EXCLUSIVE right and obligation of Congress. This would be a good thing because Congress is supposed to be answerable to the electorate.
Some time ago Congress started passing laws that delegate "rule making" to unelected executive branch bureaucrats. This is where the Deep State came from. A perfect example would be Obamacare. Legislation like Obamacare will have a definitions section, and in most cases "The Secretary" will be defined as whoever is in charge of the three letter agency involved in administering the law. In the case of Obamacare, the "The Secretary" is the secretary of Health and Human Services. Then throughout the law the various sections will read "The Secretary shall promulgate rules" to effectuate whatever over arching goal the law has. Using Obamacare again as an example, you can do a "control F" for the word promulgate and see that the word is used 91 times in the law:
https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ148/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
The very first time the phrase is used in the law you can see that Congress is allowing "The Secretary" of HHS to define what a "dependent" is under the law:
‘‘(b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to define the dependents to which coverage shall be made available under subsection (a).
Some people (like me) argue that rule making is just lawmaking by another name, and that it is totally unconstitutional for these three letter agencies to be essentially making the laws that govern our every day lives.
Delegation to the three letter agencies proliferated after the 1984 (ironic, no?) Supreme Court decision in Chevron. Wikipedia's summary of the decision isn't too bad actually:
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers.[1] The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference".[2] The doctrine consists of a two-part test applied by the court, when appropriate, that is highly deferential to government agencies: "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction [emphasis added] of the statute", so long as Congress has not spoken directly to the precise issue at question.
In that case the court held that the EPA could define the word "source" in administering a congressional statute governing the source of pollution.
Chevron has been a disaster and I know for sure that Gorsuch has questioned whether it needs to be overturned. I know people here won't like it but Scalia was a defender of the decision and general proposition that the court's shouldn't interfere with Congress' delegation of rule making, etc. That Gorsuch was Scalia's replacement was a huge problem for the left because they of course love the Deep State. I am sure many wished Scalia dead for decades. Be careful what you wish for LOL.
The ruling in this new EPA case would almost have to address whether Chevron should be overruled.
Lawyer here.
Admin law is pretty screwed up.
If the petitioner (WV) is arguing that the regulatory authority issued by Congress to the agency (EPA) violates the non-delegation doctrine, I don't like our chances IF the Court keeps to stare decisis (precedent). Currently, and historically, the non-delegation clause has only twice in the Court's history struck down laws on the basis of non-delegation.
Non delegation essentially says that article 1 of the constitution grants to Congress authority to pass laws. Congress can delegate some of this legislative authority to other branches. In the case of executive agencies (like the EPA) this means that Congress is delegating power to the executive branch (article 2). In the past, these types of delegations have nearly all been Constitutional as long as the Congressional statute has what is called an "intelligible principal" which essentially means that Congress has to say what the agency can do. Even something as broad as "The EPA shall have authority to make rules and adjudicate for all issues that relate to ensuring sufficient environmental quality in the US". So an subsequent EPA regulation that sets limits on carbon emissions from coal plants would fall within this intelligible principal.
But, lately the Court has been overruling prior precedents and upturning stare decisis, so that may be a good sign.
Keep your fingers crossed. Because if non-delegation is reworked, this calls into question all future Congressional laws that attempt to delegate legislative power to unelected bureaucrats. And possibly even past delegations.
We'll see.
Goodbye criminal SEC in bed with hedgefucks on Wall Street fucking retail traders day and night. Hello GMErica blockchain NFT block trading fueled by IMX technologies….!
People, save this post. IF this ruling against EPA goes favorable take every last penny you have and buy 2 things; (1) GME GameStop stock via computersharedotcom (2) IMX (Immutable X crypto) on Coinbase
You won’t need a lot but you will surely want some of each. God speed anons!
Fine print: This is not financial advice. Past performance not indicative of future results.
Honestly, frens. He may be right, but you will wish you bought MOAR DWAC
Agreed. Don’t argue DWAC, perhaps soon to be TMTG will be a monster. Obvious demand - my only question is to see if the SEC plays some Tomfoolery around the merger for 1, and then the speed of the team at releasing competitive platforms. I’m all for it, I just don’t want to park my money there in a bear market with the stock devaluing everyday. I’ll jump in but not until it’s rock bottom (the stock or market or both) but DWAC is definitely one of my priority long term vehicles; not climbing aboard just yet though.
It's in very shallow water, should but bottom soon.
Are you talking about @Q on Truth Social?
IMO not polluting rivers would need some cooperation.
I don't know if you would need the EPA to do this though.