EPA Sets New Standards for CO2 : Obama Asks Courts to Defer to EPA?

Who's afraid to the EPA, everyone should be terrified of this agency and it's friends in the White House.

This boggles the mind - the courts are asked defer to government agencies to interpret their own mandates regarding the intent of congressional law making? Little wonder the EPA is totally out of control and is easily the most powerful and corrupt agency in this government, even more so the congress itself, and that's going some.

The Obama administration is setting new standards for absolute corruption of our Constitution, it's interpretation and it's principles. Want to be scared even more, it appears the majority or the population are ready to live under the new rules and regulations from the EPA as they voted twice for Mr Obama to make it happen.

Still not scared enough yet, it appears Gruber is right after all.

Who's Afraid of the EPA?
Source: William Yeatman, "EPA's Clean Power Plan Overreach," Competitive Enterprise Institute, July 28, 2015.

September 8, 2015

 On June 2, 2014, the Obama Administration unveiled its key climate change initiative, the Clean Power Plan, targeting CO2 emissions from U.S. electrical power plants. In its proposal, the Administration took the unusual step of claiming Chevrondeference -- preemptively asking federal courts to defer how the plan will be interpreted entirely to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Chevron deference, named for a seminal 1984 Supreme Court ruling, is an oft-used administration principle of law claiming that federal courts should defer to reasonable agency construction of the statutes they are charged with administering. Fundamentally, the principle is an extension of Congress' lawmaking powers whereby agencies are delegated authority by Congress to interpret congressional mandates.

The D.C. Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction for judicial review of the Clean Power Plan, applies the doctrine of constitutional avoidance in instances where the agency's interpretation of its mandate would raise constitutional difficulties. The Supreme Court ruled in King v. Burwell, that the presumption should be against Chevron in instances when the agency's interpretation of its mandate would expand agency control over issues of "deep economic and political significance."

The EPA's Clean Power Plan contravenes every principle undergirding Chevron deference. For starters, the agency enjoys no delegation of congressional authority to remake the retail electricity market, nor does the rule enjoy any semblance of electoral accountability. Also, the agency lacks expertise in overseeing the nation's electric grid.

The EPA's track record does not suggest that it can be trusted to take a reasonably transcribed interpretation of any congressional mandate to regulate emissions from any sector of private life or industry. The agency's expansive interpretation of the Clean Air Act, for instance, should give federal judges pause when considering whether or not to grant Chevron deference to a repeat offender.