Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
The Supreme Court sided with science against Obama
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 2848208" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>A bit more on the issue here:</p><p></p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc." target="_blank"><em>Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.</em>, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)</a></p><p>In other words, if Congress hasn't explicitly defined the authority it granted to an agency, then the agency gets to use whatever definition it likes, so long as it <em>could</em> be a plausible meaning of the statute. Note that the <em>Chevron</em> case arose because the EPA reversed its definition between the Carter and Reagan administrations; not only can the agency write its own definition, it can change it as well (with some limited restrictions to ensure notice, due process, etc.).</p><p></p><p>That's what this case is about: does the EPA have the legal authority to call CO2 a pollutant and thus regulate it? That's not a question of science, it's a question of what mandate Congress gave the EPA.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 2848208, member: 13624"] A bit more on the issue here: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc."][I]Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.[/I], 467 U.S. 837 (1984)[/URL] In other words, if Congress hasn't explicitly defined the authority it granted to an agency, then the agency gets to use whatever definition it likes, so long as it [I]could[/I] be a plausible meaning of the statute. Note that the [I]Chevron[/I] case arose because the EPA reversed its definition between the Carter and Reagan administrations; not only can the agency write its own definition, it can change it as well (with some limited restrictions to ensure notice, due process, etc.). That's what this case is about: does the EPA have the legal authority to call CO2 a pollutant and thus regulate it? That's not a question of science, it's a question of what mandate Congress gave the EPA. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
The Supreme Court sided with science against Obama
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom