The Real Target of the Supreme Court's EPA Decision

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

59% : West Virginia v. EPA emerged as an appeal from these challenges.
49% : Despite the crystal clear textual authority, he maintains that Congress could not possibly have meant EPA to address such a comprehensive kind of "system."
48% : The CPP required states to submit plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through a combination of burning coal more cleanly, shifting from coal to natural gas, and shifting power generation from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas to renewable sources like wind and solar.
45% : West Virginia v. EPA strips the EPA of significant authority to address climate change.
43% : Together with the court's elimination of the constitutional right to abortion, restriction of gun regulations, and expansion of religious authority, a clear picture is emerging: The people have less power now to create a safe and healthy society.
40% : It's been applied in a handful of cases ranging from physician-assisted suicide to the Affordable Care Act.
38% : In yet another major blow to democratic constitutionalism, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. EPA that the Clean Air Act does not give EPA authority to regulate the power grid as a whole.
38% : West Virginia v. EPA reasoning is similarly problematic.
31% : Chief Justice John Roberts makes no serious effort to defend his assertion that EPA exercised a "power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted."

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.