AOC Gathers Support for Bill to Overrule Supreme Court's EPA Decision

[AntivaxHunters]

Oh I love this!

https://truthout.org/articles/ocasio-cortez-gathers-support-for-bill-to-overrule-supreme-courts-epa-decision/

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) is gathering support in the House for a bill aimed at overturning a recent Supreme Court decision ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is limited in its authority to regulate carbon emissions — a decision that could have devastating consequences for the climate.

Earlier this month, Ocasio-Cortez introduced the EPA Regulatory Authority Act of 2022, a bill that’s narrowly crafted to focus on amending the Clean Air Act, which gives the EPA the authority to regulate air pollution, in order to specifically allow the EPA to identify and reduce emissions from polluters like power plants.

Now, according to E&E News, the congresswoman is shopping around for support for the bill, hoping that it will pass the House even if there’s little chance of it passing the Senate. She says that the bill has about a dozen cosponsors so far.

The bill may be shot down in the Senate, where coal millionaire Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) just killed Congress’s last best chance to pass climate legislation, Ocasio-Cortez says — but its passage in the House would be a strong rebuke against the Supreme Court. On the last day of the Supreme Court’s term last month, it handed down its decision for West Virginia v. EPA, ruling with plaintiffs who argued that the agency doesn’t have the power to regulate carbon emissions.

[hlthe2b]

1. Great, but hardly unexpected in the House. I need to see that she has garnered Senatorial

sponsors to be rallying support THERE-- sufficient to get past a filibuster before I can get too effusive in congratulating her. Right now, a win in the House is merely perfunctory. Nice, but does nothing for us.

[betsuni]

3. +1

[AntivaxHunters]

4. It does a lot for us

And I'll explain why...

It shows young voters that their needs are being addressed & their voices are being heard.
Climate is a BFD and right now we need as much energy as we can get going into midterms.
Showing that the legislation has passed the house and stalled in the Senate sends a very powerful message with setting the example of how we MUSWT win the Senate & have a majority which offsets Sinema & Manchin.

There's no other issue more important to young voters than climate change.

[betsuni]

6. People have been concerned about climate change for decades, not new.

Republicans are the problem.

[AntivaxHunters]

7. No they haven't

And that's a big part of the problem.

It's only been the last 8-10 years that we've seen mass mobilization all around the world to combat climate change.
Staffers of Senators are literally protesting who they work for over climate change. When has anything like that ever happened?

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=X4XfDkSYxGLwjaEhKQOmfA

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=C4-AO3Nqj4QbxxV5bsn5KQ

[betsuni]

9. Blame Democrats! This is a forum for supporters of Democrats, who are environmentalists.

Environmentalism isn't a radical idea, it's a regular Democratic issue. Republicans are the problem, not both sides.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. They didn't do that.

They pointed out the blatantly obvious fact that climate change has only been an issue for the past decade or so.

[betsuni]

16. No it hasn't, been an issue from the seventies.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Climate change? In what alternate universe? n/t

[boston bean]

20. I think you might be wrong here. Dems have been called

Tree huggers for ages. Have also understood global warming since the seventies.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Hey BB. Environmentalism has been around that long...

...but climate change as a political issue is newer than that, especially treating it as a global emergency and trying to get world leaders to do something about it. I have an elderly neighbour who's a raving climate change denier, but in her spare time does stuff like picking up litter, helping look after a local park and other environmental stuff. It's weird...

[Nixie]

25. Wow, it's as if Al Gore never existed. He was the political pioneer

on climate change decades ago when it wasn’t a hip/cool subject. There was actual political risk in what Al Gore did, so this misinformation campaign about Democrats and the history of climate change needs to stop.

[betsuni]

37. +1

[Violet_Crumble]

48. I mentioned him in another post in this sub-thread..

https://democraticunderground.com/100216970808#post23

[betsuni]

21. Nixon with Clean Water Act, Carter pushing environmentalism, Al Gore talking about global warming

for decades. This is not new.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. The first two aren't about climate change...

Al Gore would have been one of the first to focus on it, I suspect. What a shame he didn't become President. The trajectory of the US would have turned out to be very different...

[betsuni]

24. But I saw the effect of the Clean Water Act.

I lived in a town on Puget Sound in the Pacific Northwest and in the seventies pollution had killed off a lot of sea life. Wasn't until many years later that clams, starfish, sea slugs, mussels, seaweed, and eventually seals came back. To me that's climate change.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. I think we're just defining it differently...

I get why you see it like that, and it's not unreasonable. I see it more as how the weather and sea levels are affected. I don't think either of us are wrong...

[FBaggins]

33. "Release of Fossil CO2 and the Possibility of a Catastrophic Climate Change"

That was Jimmy Carter in 1977

Just because some people only started paying attention to politics a few years ago does not mean that that's when the debate began.

[betsuni]

35. +1

[KPN]

42. Huh? It was for many climate scientists, ecologists, botanists, biologists, and environmentalists.

Many of whom were actually Democrats by affiliation. Me included. Sure,it wasn't the existential issue it obviously is today back then, but it was a concern of many. Hell, even the oil indistry knew it was an issue then -- and buried their own research that said so.

[AntivaxHunters]

30. Blame Democrats?

How am I blaming Democrats while at the same time posting a tweet from Ro Khana, a Democrat currently serving in Congress and a member of the progressive caucus?

Quit the gaslighting silliness.

And environmentalism =/= climate change.

[KPN]

13. I agree. Thanks.

[boston bean]

19. Then the young should be happy with all this current house has passed but died

In the senate.

They can’t have it both ways.

[Nixie]

5. Yes, it's mostly for social media otherwise.

She should also be explaining to young voters how they got stuck with such a conservative Supreme Court. It’s at least a generation to get out of the mess that Hillary wouldn’t have gotten us into.

[AntivaxHunters]

8. I think it's important

what AOC is doing.

And instead of punching down on young voters, perhaps we should be instead listening to them. After all, they're now the largest voting bloc. We need their votes and you get that with policy which addresses their wants & needs. We bring them to the polls & Republican's are wiped out in a landslide.

[betsuni]

10. Why is "punching down" on Democrats fine then? They are the progressive party.

Why the punching down accusations that the Democratic Party is corrupt because beholden to campaign contributions which makes them ignore climate change and economic inequality, not fixing health care, not "fighting" and doing nothing, etc.? That's punching down.

[AntivaxHunters]

38. They're not punching down

Why the punching down accusations that the Democratic Party is corrupt because beholden to campaign contributions which makes them ignore climate change and economic inequality, not fixing health care, not "fighting" and doing nothing, etc.? That's punching down.

What are you even on about here? Nobody is even talking about anything you've mentioned outside of climate change and I don't know where you're getting this from. None of that has even been a topic of conversation. You seem to have a grudge against young voters, why I don't know. Like it or not though they are the largest voting bloc. Getting them to the polls is vital especially given that millions come of voting age each & every year.

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this but one thing is for sure, this planet is on fire & it's up to US to do something about it.

[Nixie]

27. It's the Supreme Court punching down, and it looks like we all better

get used to it. This is the reality of giving away your power over ideals sprung from misinformation campaigns. The Republicans have played a long game built around the reality of the government we have. Social media influencing won’t get it done.

It would also be a good idea to embrace Al Gore’s teachings and show knowledge of that history instead of saying Democrats are absent on climate change. Al Gore was the one punched down on. Nothing good has come of that for the last generation.

[betsuni]

32. +1

[AntivaxHunters]

39. Al Gore should run in 2024

Because he would win in a landslide especially given his campaign would likely center climate change.

[FBaggins]

40. He's only slightly younger than President Biden

His time has come and gone. He's far more effective as the elder statesman still pushing the issues that mattered to him when he was in public office.

Which, coincidentally (considering the errors up-thread) included the first congressional hearings on climate change...

... in 1976

[Demsrule86]

34. She doesn't have the votes in the Senate and knows this. If it could pass that is one thing.

But we have moderate house members who could be hurt by this...and for what? This is a bill that goes nowhere unless you get Republicans...10 of them. I don't understand why anyone goes for a bill that they know can't pass at the moment. I would think a better way to do this is to concentrate on winning the midterms...this doesn't help...I don't get it.

[KPN]

11. Lol. Pragmatism over perfunctory! Let's do nothing. Yay.

[Demsrule86]

36. Pragatism works...it saves wasting time that could be spent getting the majorities needed for

the legislation. That is just my take. I don't see how this helps us.

[KPN]

43. How are you going to get those majorities if you are perceived as twiddling your thumbs

on huge issues? That's what most of the younger voters I know think is going on ...

[Demsrule86]

47. Bringing up votes with no chance of passing only makes you look weak...campaign on those

Last edited Tue Jul 26, 2022, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

issues. Tell voters the solution is in sending Democrats to Congress so we have the votes. When you bring a bill up and know you are going to lose...what is the point? And it is discouraging. Some voters need to understand we need bigger majorities to address their needs and if they want significant change, they must vote for Democrats. Fuck make up a contract with America... as the GOP ass-hats did...tell voters what we can do if we have enough warm Democratic bodies in Congress.

[Demsrule86]

31. She doesn't have Manchin...so no.

[FBaggins]

2. That wouldn't overrule the Supreme Court's decision - it would uphold it

They didn't say "the EPA can't regulate carbon emissions" - they said "the EPA can't regulate carbon emissions unless Congress tells them that they can".

Congress can fix that with this type of legislation - but it wouldn't change the ruling (which will continue to cause problems when regulatory agencies get into conflict with those who claim that they've expanded their reach beyond what Congress delegated).

[Raven123]

12. Exactly. It's what is needed.

[KPN]

14. Excellent. That is after all the solution to this

particular SCOTUS ruling.

[gratuitous]

45. I agree

The basis for the stupid ruling by the Supreme Court was that Congress hadn't specifically authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out its mission to, uh, protect the environment. (Really? Okayyy.) So here's legislation specifying that the EPA is supposed to protect the environment. Happy now you dumbass motherfuckers?

[Novara]

17. Good, but it will be shot down in the Senate.

[Celerity]

26. the old Coal Polka would be the dance tune for that

Let's Polka - Stanky and The Coalminers

[Celerity]

28. so glad to see this being pushed, the optics are great for the midterms even if the Senate blocks it

[KPN]

44. THIS.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. First, writer Sharon Zhang needs a civics class.

I applaud this legislation and its eventual effects.

Using the term "Overrule" is misleading and damaging to reader's understanding of our government. It implies that Congress maintains superiority over the Supreme Court. It does not. SCOTUS is the final arbiter of laws, their effects and shortcomings and over incidents of government overreach. When the SC decides that a law is unconstitutional, Congress does not have a "oh yes it is" comeback.

Parliamentary sovereignty (also called parliamentary supremacy or legislative supremacy) is a concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. It holds that the legislative body has absolute sovereignty and is supreme over all other government institutions, including executive or judicial bodies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty

The Founders were very careful to balance the three federal branches such that one would dominate the others.

Giving the public the idea that Congress has that authority is real mistake.

In reality, the SCOTUS opinion is that, under current law, the EPA took action beyond its authority. I think we all see that the EPA should have that authority and Congress is passing implementing legislation to correct the deficiency in the EPA's powers.

[Amishman]

46. Thank you! This is something that I think is getting missed

Both the gutting of the EPA and also abortion rights were setup decades ago by prior use of the courts to do what should have been done with legislation. This gives us a window on these issues we generally do not have

[PhylliPretzel]

41. Thank you

for bringing this to my attention.
I have emailed my congress critter to ask him to become a co-sponsor to AOC's bill.