Tag

elena kagan

Browsing

(RepublicanWire.org) – Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan penned the dissent in the EPA case after the administration of President Joe Biden was defeated on Thursday, and she gave an ominous warning that the East Coast could be “swallowed by the ocean.”

“Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” the Justice said. “And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions.”

“If the current rate of emissions continues, children born this year could live to see parts of the Eastern seaboard swallowed by the ocean,” she said in the dissent, signed onto by the Justice Stephen Breyer, who retired on Thursday, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in the 6-3 case.

“Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,’” she said.

“The Court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decision maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening,” she said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch hit back at her claims in his concurring decision in which he said, “the Court hardly professes to ‘appoint itself’ ‘the decision-maker on climate policy.’”

“The Court acknowledges only that, under our Constitution, the people’s elected representatives in Congress are the decisionmakers here — and they have not clearly granted the agency the authority it claims for itself,” he said.

In the case of West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency, the Court ruled 6-3 to curb the agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gasses.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion. The Court’s three liberal justices dissented.

“Republican attorneys general will argue the EPA has no authority to regulate planet-warming emissions from the power sector. Instead, they will say that authority should be given to Congress,” CNN reported. The case also has enormous implications for Biden’s climate agenda. With legislative action on climate looking uncertain at best, a Supreme Court decision siding with coal companies could undercut an important way the administration planned to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.”

“The power sector is the country’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gas. Power emissions rose last year, mainly driven by coal. Experts say West Virginia v. EPA is a highly unusual case, because there is no current EPA rule on power plant emissions. Plaintiffs are asking the court to block the EPA from implementing future rules,” the outlet added.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, the main plaintiff in the case, was joined by Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen other states.

The plaintiffs challenged the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions coming from power plants.

They also argued that this power should be taken away from the agency and given to Congress.

“I think this is really about a fundamental question of who decides the major issues of the day,” Morrisey said at a media event. “Should it be unelected bureaucrats, or should it be the people’s representatives in Congress? That’s what this case is all about.”

“These federal agencies don’t have the ability to act on their own without getting a clear statement from Congress,” Morrisey added. “If you have something that’s major, you have to make sure Congress steps in, and Congress gets to make these major decisions of the day.”

A unanimous Supreme Court decision spells bad news for illegals who were hoping to stay in the United States permanently. On Monday, SCOTUS ruled that illegals who are in the country can’t stay.

While Democrats are trying to open up our borders and make staying in the U.S. really easy for those who decided to enter illegally, SCOTUS unanimously said “no” to that idea. TheBlaze reports:

The ruling in Sanchez v. Mayorkas, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, could affect tens of thousands of immigrants currently living in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status, the Associated Press reported.

The case was brought by Jose Sanchez and Sonia Gonzalez, a married couple from of El Salvador who entered the United States illegally in the late 1990s. Later, in 2001, the two were granted Temporary Protected Status in the U.S. after El Salvador was rocked by devastating earthquakes.

TPS is a status granted to foreign nationals from certain designated countries ravaged by armed conflict or natural disaster that allows them to live and work in the U.S. without being subject to deportation.

Then in 2014, Sanchez and Gonzalez applied for “green cards,” or lawful permanent resident status, but were denied, and subsequently sued.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, however, ruled against them, arguing that they were ineligible under federal immigration law, which requires applicants to have been “inspected and admitted” into the U.S, the New York Times reported.

In Monday’s unanimous ruling, the nation’s top court agreed with that decision.

“The question here is whether the conferral of TPS enables him to obtain LPR status despite his unlawful entry. We hold that it does not,” wrote liberal Justice Elena Kagan. “Lawful status and admission, as the court below recognized are distinct concepts in immigration law: Establishing one does not necessarily establish the other.”

“The TPS program gives foreign nationals nonimmigrant status, but it does not admit them. So the conferral of TPS does not make an unlawful entrant … eligible [for a green card],” she explained.

This decision affects as many as 400,000 illegal immigrants and stands to show that sometimes, even liberals recognize that when you don’t have borders or rule of law, you don’t have a country.