In December, Barack Obama entered into an agreement with 200 other nations to greatly reduce carbon emissions over the next couple of decades, and he planned on using the extremist Environmental Protection Agency to do so. However, what he didn’t expect was a pushback from the states, and his anti-American agenda was dealt a massive blow by the Supreme Court.
The Daily Caller is reporting that the EPA planned on further regulating carbon dioxide emissions for the power industry as part of a broader plan to cut carbon output by 32 percent by the year 2030. As a result, 29 states turned around and took legal action against the administration, and they were just handed a nice win by the Court.
Fortunately, the majority of the Justices on the Court agreed with the states that the EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan would cause great harm to their economies. “Make no mistake – this is a great victory for West Virginia,” said West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who’s leading the charge against the Obama administration.
“Five justices of the Supreme Court agreed with North Dakota and other parties that EPA’s regulation would impose massive irreparable harms on North Dakota and the rest of the country and that there was a substantial likelihood EPA was acting unlawfully,” Paul Seby, the attorney representing North Dakota said.
Back in January, a lower court refused to halt the implementation of the EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan (CPP), which is the aggressive carbon-reducing initiative brought about after Obama joined 200 other nations in December to combat the myth of global warming. However, after states’ attorneys successfully argued that the EPA was acting outside of its authority and is trying to “double regulate” coal-fired power plants, which are already regulated by the Clean Air Act, the Justices granted their request to halt the rule’s implementation.
“We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule’s immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues,” Morrisey said.
Although, while they’ve been granted temporary relief from the cumbersome regulation, states do face somewhat of an uphill battle to permanently defeat it. The Daily Caller has more on how the case could play out:
But defeating the CPP in court may not be as easy as states think, since the Obama administration will likely argue striking down these rules would go against international commitments made by the U.S. in Paris last year.
In December, the U.S. joined nearly 200 countries in pledging to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to fight global warming. Obama promised to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.
The Obama administration, however, may have problems of its own because it has not gotten the agreement ratified by the Senate — a key requirement for a legally binding treaty. This has only added to the confusion of whether or not the United Nations Paris deal is legally a treaty or not.
If the states win, according to the president of the Institute for Energy Research Tom Pyle, it would be a “fatal blow” to Obama’s extreme climate agenda. Pyle also said that the radical regulation shows that Obama will stop at nothing to combat the myth of global warming.
“This shows just how far the Obama administration has gone — they went too far,” Pyle said.
Indeed. What’s terrifying is that the states barely squeaked out a win in this one, and it’s only temporary at that. Keep in mind that if a Democrat wins in 2016, they’ll likely be given the opportunity to replace a justice, then cases like this would be decided much differently. If that’s not incentive to vote anything but Sanders or Hillary, I’m not entirely sure what is.