Supreme Court blocks EPA's "good neighbor" rule, Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan 

Then legislators should consult with the experts before they write the LAW. Bureaucrats have absolutely NO right to make law.

what are you talking about? they ruled against purdue pharma. did you even watch the video?

It's not law and reason be damned it's Chevron deference be damned. Elect representatives that will actually pass the law you want then the EPA can enforce it.

You clearly didn't watch the video

@@macemaster I believe they are talking about the EPA ruling. It is inconsistent of them to hold Purdue accountable but let businesses and states get away with poisoning other states.

@@calebsmith7179 california would've sued every other state into oblivion

They have hidden their money overseas, so they said we’ll pay some money if you promise that’s all you’ll want, otherwise we’ll give you nothing. That’s the problem. I’m still happy with the decision but I’m not the one who would have gotten anything from the settlement anyway.

What do you mean? They made all the right decisions here, and their ruling is a big win for the people.

@jakehildebrand1824 even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then.

@@claudermiller Thats fair

You better give some credit to the only county with a system with that sort of transparency and branch independence as to decide against itself from time to time.

we subsidize and promote the biggest drug abuse problem in the country so...

In the early 2000's Doctors were writing prescriptions like wild fire for percocets and oxytocin. Millions of Americans got addicted

@@janejones8672 and even in those days, alcohol was still the biggest drug abuse problem that no one still wants to do anything about and go out their way to overhype other problems in hopes of ignoring the truth

@@tenacietripeam-og7vc It's Chemical Class Warfare.

Except that the government did make a law to create the EPA and can delegate power for regulatory purposes to administrative agencies.

​@matthewstromberg8272 wrong. Congress doesn't have the power to give that power to an agency.

​@@matthewstromberg8272But only that which is NECESSARY to implement the laws passed by CONGRESS. Regulatory agencies have attempted to expand their authority for decades.

​@@matthewstromberg8272if people want the EPA to write laws then they need to have the constitution amended. Thus is not rocket science.

Courts don’t make laws.

If laws worked, cops wouldn't carry guns.

To protect the People from a tyrannical Government. It's pretty simple.

To keep the government in check

Every new law is a restriction on freedom.

@kingphilwill The Bible is full of laws, and it calls believers "slaves". "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh." 1 Peter 2:18

You forget that the court is not to make rulings based on what they believe to be good policies. You surely agree that “nobody is above the law”? Well that applies to the government, and the states as well. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and we are a Federal Republic, which means that the states are truly semi-sovereign. For example, Wyoming is a sovereign states in the Union, and so is Colorado; they cannot tell each other what to do, and to a large degree, neither can the Federal Government. To impeach the courts ruling you must have more evidence than “that was a terrible decision.” I, like others, don’t always agree with the court, and I’m not even super familiar with this particular ruling, however when I disagree with the court, I disagree based on Constitutional Law grounds, not my personal beliefs. The EPA is an Executive agency. Remember that there are 3 branches of the Federal Government: the Legislative branch MAKES laws, the Executive ENFORCES laws, and the Judiciary INTERPRETS laws and validates that the laws are Constitutional and otherwise lawful. The EPA has NO legislative authority, and thus are not allowed to make any laws. They are only allowed to enforce precise things according to what the Congress (legislative branch) tells them. Furthermore, the EPA may not infringe the rights of the states or of the citizens.

@@trev5.566 this is a stupid decision, because the reason that Congress created agencies like the EPA was specifically to handle things like this, instead of forcing Congress to handle every decision the EPA needs to make, which is why SCOTUS had the Chevron doctrine in the first place, and just because a bunch of conservatives have decided to start throwing out precedent doesn't make this a good decision, and when we finally get more sane justices on the court, they will have no problem ignoring precedent and restoring agency to the EPA and other agencies, so they can do the job that Congress created them to do.

The kids won’t stand for it, the kids are gaining power. The same politicians that always ask us “what about the kids” will be over thrown by kids one day. The kids understand that air pollution is bad unlike gramps in Congress and the snakes in SC

@@JasonBoyce States can sue each other and do so all the time. The result is often compacts and agreements made and ratified by legislatures. There is such a pact intended to rescue the Chesapeake Bay. Approved by 6 states and enforced by the feds as approved. Thats how free people settle disputes, not create some glorified HOA to make rules.

@@trev5.566 Ok I don't normally comment, but your comment is highly misleading for many reasons. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and we are a Federal Republic, which means that the states are truly semi-sovereign. For example, Wyoming is a sovereign states in the Union, and so is Colorado; they cannot tell each other what to do, and to a large degree, neither can the Federal Government. No, states are not sovereign in any sense. Their authority is purely derived from the US Constitution which explicitly delegates certain powers to the states. This is the Tenth Amendment. States cannot choose to ignore federal laws and state law does not override federal laws. This is why Texas is getting in hot water with immigration, because they have no authority to regulate immigration policy despite the illegal immigrants being in Texas. In making laws pertaining to immigration enforcement, they are attempting to supercede federal authority. And before you bring up sanctuary cities, their situation is different because they don't make any laws to replace or challenge the authority of the federal government, they have a law prohibiting cooperation with ICE. ICE is still free to enforce immigration policy within a sanctuary city, and there are no laws compelling other agencies to assist with ICE. Remember that there are 3 branches of the Federal Government: the Legislative branch MAKES laws, the Executive ENFORCES laws, and the Judiciary INTERPRETS laws and validates that the laws are Constitutional and otherwise lawful. The EPA has NO legislative authority, and thus are not allowed to make any laws. This is way, way more complex than you are making it out to be. While the EPA, USDA, whatever are all under the executive branch, it was CONGRESS who authorized their creation and CONGRESS who delegated certain powers to these agencies. The current debate is HOW MUCH authority to they have. The EPA is not making new laws, they are creating regulations and policy, which it in turn enforces. This is not the same as "making a law". They are only allowed to enforce precise things according to what the Congress (legislative branch) tells them. Again, this is far more complex than you are making it out to be. What is "precise"? What about the phrase "create policy to regulate air quality"? How much authority does that give? Does Congress need to say "regulate the levels of environmental pollutants"? Then who defines "environmental pollutants"? The current SCOTUS believes that the scope of an action affects the authority of the body. Forgiving student debt is too broad an action, so what constitutes acceptably broad? Kind of broad? Not that broad? What about forgiving a little bit of debt? These questions really make no sense and are bad for everyone. Why did the FDA has authority to approve drugs? That is creating policy and enforcing it, which according to you, is making new laws to regulate the sale of a new drug.

That's wishful thinking. They could take just one billion of their multitudes of billions and never even noticed they spent a dime.

So who do you go after for fentanyl?

@@mattk8810 Janssen Pharmaceutica, owned by johnson and johnson. They hold the patent on fenny.

​​@@mattk8810Cartel and China. I guess he wants the supreme court to institute tariffs and close the border

Purdue got people hooked on drugs in the first place. They were pushing them like they were safe.

Purdue got people hooked in the first place. They were pushing their product claiming it was safe.

Omg so true! Almost like an independent branch of power or smth. /s

so the Supreme Court checking the executive branch’s delegated power to letter agency bureaucrats is a bad thing? Those bureaucrats do not have the authority to write legislation, yet, they are given the power to enforce regulations. You don’t see the over extension of power by the executive branch an issue?

The entire point of the Supreme Court is to keep the white house and other branches in check...

Except they won’t, which means that the people suffer.

Congress is in gridlock whenever one party doesn’t control both chambers, which is not most of the time. (edit: now they don’t need 60% in the senate anymore, but it’s still sometimes hard to get every senator of the majority to agree on some legislation).

The problem is the agencies are full of experts in their fields, and the congress is full of idiots and lobbiest puppets.

No. Congress can delegate authority to federal agencies, and they also have the right to overrule regulations approved under that delegated authority. If they do not, then the regulations have the force of law because Congress allowed it. Have you ever been in the military? Senior officers delegate authority to junior officers. As a division officer on a ship I could run my department as I saw fit (within Navy regs, of course) and my orders carried the full authority of the Captain. But if he did not approve of the way I ran things, the Captain could make me do things differently or even discipline me. THat's how organizations run.

The worst kept secret is that it was the Reagan administration that wanted the Chevron decision so they could use the EPA to deregulate in favor of business. They didn't want the Federal courts interpreting laws, they wanted their EPA to be able to do it themselves. We've just now come full circle.

suggest you read up

​@@pdoylemiSo you're okay with your local police making up a law to arrest you? What about the local town creating a rule the condemns your home? If you're okay with delegating, I'm sure you're perfectly fine.

I live in the country so I don't care.

womp womp

@@eggnog52I live in a country that doesn’t care

Check out the pollution in China. They want our clean water and land.

​@@eggnog52so pathetic

Lawn? No. But if your neighbor is across state lines and you sh*t on your own lawn and the smell drifts over, only your state can regulate you, not your neighbor's state.

The SCOTUS literally just threw a rich elite under the bus who was trying to shield himself from liability for hurting people. Are you illiterate or just dishonest?

If you don't like congress, don't vote for the incumbent. Vote for someone else, run for office yourself, or quit whining. If you don't like the judges, see the above.

@@bobbarclay316 and you may be right Bob, although if I ran for sheriff or whatever, I believe I would have to pay money to do so, FREE ELECTIONS DO NOT EXIST IN THIS COUNTRY, IT'S ALL PAY TO PLAY!!! BIDEN AND TRUMP ARE THE BEST EXAMPLE OF HOW OUR ELECTIONS ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, WHEN ALL THE WHILE THEY WOULD BE COVERED FOR FREE BY THE PRESS IF THERE WERE ACTUALLY PUBLIC ELECTIONS 😉 I DO LIKE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, I JUST HAVE LITTLE FAITH IN POLITICS

That is your fault for watching, knowing and … doing nothing

The problem is that a regulatory bureaucracy feeds itself and grows itself by continually expanding regulation. It is not a conspiracy; it is government bureaucrats acting in their own selfish interest to grow their power and maintain or improve their job security. Many of these people care about nothing but their pensions; while the political appointees are often single-issue fanatics far out of the mainstream.

It's cute when liberals start ranting about radiation and pollution because unelected and unaccountable partisan bureaucrats tried to SWAT raid farmers using "laws" that they invented from thin air, and claimed they were "regulations".

@@sdfasdfadfasdfadfasd Yep! When the EPA tries to control your use of your property because you have a seasonal puddle, they aren't even pretending to be anything but authoritarian.

@@wildmouse5888 True! I was personally involved in an environmental response once that involved lots of agency departments and politicians… My experience was that most of the technocrats working in the agencies were generally trying to do a reasonable job of serving the public good. But the politicians… oh my, different story. That experience colors my interpretation, I’m afraid. :-)

Show me one example when the SEC helped the Retail Investor?..... Only USA residents are excluded from Air Drops (Free Money), Invest in many tokens which are making foreigners millionaires...but Gary's Big Buddies can profit by forming shell companies overseas.

I noticed that too... Classic leftist and pro big government comment by CBS, thrown in there right at the end to try to swade their viewers

Having lived in big government Brazil for 6 years I can say, you don't want that in the States. It means poverty for the masses and riches for those in power

yes i'd say disproportionate enforcement is the rule, its basically true. I worked as an enforcement attorney at NJDEP and EPA for 22 years. The agencies are harder on the little guys and go easy on the big polluters re the degree and duration of pollution. Congress wont fix this as long as its owned by the big guys of course.

The US cannot impact Climate Change, not until they stop burning coal in China and Germany

Oh, they understand it; but a little thing like the Constitution becomes their enemy when it restricts their power. The Constitution is a CAGE designed to restrain the government; and they can't stand it.

Brain dead take

Most people in these comments are completely lost, good to see at least one person understands the harm of the federal bureaucracy. Congress has illegally deferred its power to these agencies of unelected bureaucrats that undermined the states and the people.

@@krs1297 lol you replied to a nuanced take that looks beyond the black and white of the issue with a zero nuance take including no thoughts and call my take brain dead? That’s rich.

All the alphabet agencies are over stepping these days.

No. The EPA is never allowed to overstep - they are hamstrung by oil-heads to the point where they have very little impact on preventing climate change.

​@@freetechnexus4914"Experts warn us the Arctic will be completely ice free in 5 years." - John Kerry in 2009 lol

@@freetechnexus4914 Another lost soul. Let me guess, if we can stop cow farts and make cars electric, right?

​@@freetechnexus4914The EPA oversteps all the time. Just look at how they treat the vehicle and tuning industries and communities.

It is complicated. We need the balance of powers. No state or individual should be able to harm other, pollute their neighbors, your right stop at my door. States are easier to corrupt especially since the Supreme Court has just legalize bribery. Buying politicians just became legal. The federal government is supposed to over see that . THAT IS why republicans stole the Supreme Court seats from US .

Ironic position, given that the EPA was created by a Republican president (Nixon).

@@reidpinchback8850 Who said Republican or Democratic Congress? Or President? Congress fails in its duty when it delegates law making power to Federal Agencies. That, combined with SCOTUS Chevron rule means the people are effectively shut off from legislative power. It's wrong no matter who does it.

Good because only congress can make law according to the constitution.

Good! Why are you upset about that? You want to be ruled by unelected bureaucrats?

@@ImmaTwoPopsCongress created these federal agencies to issue regulations in areas where Congress lacked the technical expertise. They delegated rulemaking authority to these agencies.

BOOOOOYYYYYAAAHH! 👍

@@ImmaTwoPops Yes, and they did. They made laws that delegated authority to EXPERTS who can better decide the details of how to accomplish the goals Congress set for them than Congress ever could!

Good luck getting an sort of laws past with the legislative. This creates a blind spot in law at the federal level where legislative, as they have done for so many years is gridlocked can't provide needed laws passed.

Tell em

These agencies were created by Congress and specifically authorized to make regulations. That’s the reason they exist, because members of Congress aren’t technical experts and want regulations to be promulgated by experts.

@@piercecosmo no they weren’t…. The majority of them were made by presidents decreeing it.

You mean give the power to the multi-millionaires and billionaires who own our politicians? Take a walk.

Congress GIVES them that authority under law, and the courts cannot take it away -only Congress can! Your plan is CHILDISH in the extreme! What do YOU or anyone in Congress know about nuclear physics? Should we eliminate the NRC and just leave the safety of the nuclear power industry in the hands of people who know nothing about it, and can be paid off by lobbyists?

@@GurtiusMaximus Apparently you don’t know anything about how the U.S. government works. The President does not have plenary authority to create federal agencies. Every agency has an authorizing statute written and passed by Congress that lays out its authority delegated by Congress. Congress has oversight of federal agencies, both directly and through the GAO. Every agency is constantly reporting on its activities to Congress, which exercises continuous oversight and lays out the agencies’ specific budgets. The EPA website is full of published reports to Congress. Maybe take a civics class or something so you learn a little bit about how the United States works?

Like you, my heart breaks when billion-dollar corporations are told "no" by the gubberment 🥺

CFPB

Regardless of the stated reason, agencies were created for one reason - government control.

@@4110mahindra I completely disagree.

Who exactly in congress is looking out for anyone besides their corporate and millionaire/billionaire donors? Use your common sense, we can’t upend our institutions and cede power to those people.

@@shantalynn Who's laptop is real? Who's diary is real? Who lied about both?

And ATF

​@@markdavis-oi6om ATF needs to be at the top of the trash pile. I'll add department of education and NSA.

Your prose indicates your relative intelligence.

You are drinking the hysteria kool-aid of global warming or as liberals all it now. Climate change!

Which Agency would that be? Who runs it? And who decides what makes a judge corrupt? Other judges? Or is there an agency for that as well? Who runs it? Asking for a friend who just spouts talking points as well....

And the "specialty agencies" are even more corrupt! So what's the solution?

Specialty agencies run by globalist billionaires thay jet all around the world in private jets. Telling developing countries how they have to live. Those specialty agencies

The people in those agencies are pushing the agenda they want to see happen,congress should decide what’s good for the country,not unelected bureaucrats with an agenda to push.

Do you trust the EPA?

As someone who wants the ATF gone I strongly wish Chevron is overturned.

The EPA is not unconstitutional. That's complete nonsense.

​@@CujobobWhere does the US Constitution outline the EPA?

@@cbbees1468 you think the US constitution outlines everything? lol what So let me guess, you think the Constitution gives the power to let people own any weapons without restriction even though it doesn’t say that, but you have a problem with something else not being literal?

Conservatives love throwing that word "unconstitutional" around for everything they dislike. It is ok to just simply say you dislike it. The constitution does not prohibit the existence of executive branch functions. It doesn't really say that much about them at all. The country was much simpler back in the days of people wearing tri-corner hats. Congress delegates daily administration to executive branch departments. It is a fair debate on how much power these departments should have before additional congressional involvement, but that does not make the very existence of those departments "unconstitutional". Broadening the vocabulary has a place. Using one word for everything gets silly.

Who's laptop is real? Who's diary is real? Who lied about both?

You mean corrupt bureaucrats looking out for their own interests. Haven’t you been paying attention? When did lefties become part of the corporate bureaucracy. O thought y’all were supposed to be liberals?

"Experts warn us the Arctic will be ice free in the next 5 years." - John Kerry in 2009 Lol.

Democrats always say that, then they have to describe the function of the shoulder thing that goes up, how the US military will make Guam tip over and sink, and how many boxes you have to carry to equal one AR-15.

​@@mikusoxlongiusAlso funny because the Left cannot figure out what a woman is and believes babies come from 2 men.

Ah yes, the right wing advocacy group made the EPA and ATF wear jackboots.

Prove it, judges can be indicted, tried and convicted if guilty

Right because the EPA should definitely be able to interpret and therefore enforce the law as they see fit. Not... The EPAs enforcement wing should not be commanded by the EPA. They should be part of the local Sheriff's dept.

But causing unrepairable damage to the environment while digging for "green resources" is okay. Got it.

the current anti environmental majority on the SCt deliberately hampered environmental protection ----- so yes it is a huge set back. Congress did not foresee or anticipate the situation we have now - that EPA would not be allowed to exercise its discretion long recognized as necessary in Chevron.

Democrats blew up the nordstream pipeline…..

LMAO

I'm pretty sure the planet's going to be okay

I think it wants car batteries

Oh stop it. The United States produces far less emissions than other countries. China and India blows us away. And the wars the democrats support/cause don't help either.

They're saving the planet from YOU.

Gold bars at a minimum

From states? 😂

​@@Cpt_JohnRackhamYour brain is extremely limited 😂.

If the Supreme Court was taking kickbacks they would be siding with the billionaire globalists of the EPA

@@Jacob-ed1bl Who's giving them kickbacks for this decision? This is a matter that only affects state governments.

Don’t forget to wear your tinfoil hat tonight while watching.

Why? You wanted the Sackler family to be protected? You want unelected bureaucrats in agencies that are unconstitutional & making it up as they go running amok?

Why, because they are standing in the way of Democrat fascism?

Who's laptop is real? Who's diary is real? Who lied about both?

I love this Supreme Court

I am indifferent

Until a train derails and spoils your favorite fishing spot.

you seem concerned about unconstitutional actions - what about Trumps unconstitutional actions on Jan 6?

@@rd264 not a Trump fan. I’m a fan of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

@@lockwoodpeckinpaugh9252, that may happen, and laws should be in place so that those responsible would be held accountable for all aspects of clean up and restoration.

The Constitution says CONGRESS makes laws NOT UNELECTED Govt Agencies dominated by 1 party & all UNELECTED

Or you could just rein in your jackbooted unelected bureaucrats to stop inventing laws to enforce.

fake comment

🤡

@@lilwobblywade6324 Who's laptop is real? Who's diary is real? Who lied about both?

@@mikusoxlongius biden

What’s the definition?

@@savuense2972 Adult human female. That wasn't hard. Now try a few of my questions. Who's laptop is real? Who's diary is real? Who lied about both?

so random hahah

And IDEM and AFT

F the EPA haters!

@@rd264 Without the EPA we would be colonizing space now. The earth would be saved.

@@rd264 Without the EPA we would be living in space now. And Earth would be saved.