And sometimes his branch of government doesn't have to beat up the other branches because they dociley do his bidding without need of "persuading". Or as the proprietor likes to put it, "When you attempt to use one branch of the federal government to restrain another branch of federal government using federal government employees and federal money, what result are you likely to get?"
Answer: this one:
A U.S. federal court on Thursday rejected a bid by twenty-seven States to block the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of its strategy to "combat climate change" [i.e. shut down the U.S. energy industry] by reducing carbon emissions from power plants.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a brief order denying an application seeking to stay the rule while litigation continues.
The States, led by West Virginia, and several major business groups in October launched the legal challenges seeking to block the Obama administration's proposal to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
The D.C. Circuit has a 10-8 Republican(-appointed) majority, so take that for what you will. I don't know what the net-affiliations of the three judge sub-panel were and whether it was split or unanimous, but it does seem to me that if they were likely to ultimately rule in favor of the plaintiffs, they would have stayed implementation of the CPP, just as Judge Andrew Hanen attempted to injunct Obamnesty a year ago and then subsequently ruled against the White House on that case. That they did not may speak volumes about where this case is ultimately headed. Which is to say, the Supreme Court, one way or another.
Of course, it may also be the the D.C. Circuit didn't bother with a stay, reasoning quite logically that the White House will just ignore it and keep implementing CPP anyway. Either way, the mythology-driven economic carpet-bombing will roll forward.
As to the nullification vs. lawsuit question, if any of the twenty-seven States were likely to nullify CPP, they probably wouldn't have filed suit in the first place. And after the lawsuit likely fails, or simply gets outlasted by preemptive implementation? Is nullification even a possibility as a last resort?
Does this sound like it is?:
Many States, even those that have sued the EPA over the Clean Power Plan, have started to work on plans to comply with the regulation. Their plans are due for EPA approval in September.
Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, said States are "more likely to fall into line" and try to comply with the rule now that the stay has been denied.
Begging the question of why they're persisting with the suit if they're already going to knuckle under before their case is even decided.
The Founders intended ALL Americans to be gatekeepers of constitutionality, but especially holders of elective office. CPP is just one more illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, despotic overreach that is by constitutional definition null and void, and should be nullified automatically by the holders of original authority, the federal government's creators, the States. But hardly anybody remembers any of that, was ever taught that, and consequently, knows that. And because the States don't know they have the constitutional authority and have not exercised it in decades or centuries, they've long since lost the power to do so. As with all forfeited power, regaining it is orders of magnitude more difficult than retaining it. And nobody today, not even a rightwing badass like Texas Governor Greg Abbot, will ever have the balls to do what would be necessary to accomplish that - which would be little short of a second Civil War.
Lotsa luck with that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment