Biden tears into SCOTUS for limiting power the EPA has

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

55% : The court's liberals, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented.'Today, the court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,' Kagan wrote.
53% : It appears to allow for regulations focused narrowly on capping pollution from smokestacks, but blocks wider rules that set state-by-state targets for emissions reduction or a cap-and-trade system that would trigger a faster shift to clean energy.
53% : In the wake of this ruling, EPA must use its remaining authority to the fullest,' said Jason Rylander, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, in a statement.
51% : In its decision Thursday, the court took made its most significant climate case since 2007, when justices ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gasses could be regulated as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
46% : The court sided with coal power plants and GOP-led states in West Virginia v. EPA, reviewing an appeals court decision to axe the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) Rule, a Trump-era regulation that effectively gutted the Clean Power Plan.
43% :'Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible 'solution to the crisis of the day,' Roberts wrote in his opinion for the court.
42% :'Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible 'solution to the crisis of the day,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion for the court.
42% : The case declares it unlawful for federal agencies to make 'major' decisions without clear authorization from CongressWhat the Supreme Court's decision on West Virginia v. EPA means
41% : But he added that the Clean Air Act does not give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to do so.
39% : The case said the EPA could narrowly regulate smokestack emissions, but not impose broaderThe move could force Biden to go through Congress to impose his ambitious climate agenda, where he will likely face gridlock state-by-state targets for emissions reductionAdvertisementInstead of deciding on an existing rule, the Supreme Court set a precedent for Biden's future rule, which was expected to fall in line with his goal for the entire U.S. power grid to run on clean energy by 2035.
39% :'First on gun safety, then on abortion, and now on the environment - this MAGA, regressive, extremist Supreme Court is intent on setting America back decades, if not centuries,' Schumer said. '
39% :'The Supreme Court just sided with fossil fuel companies instead of siding with our future,' said Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass.'The Supreme Court's radical right majority just gutted the Clean Air Act, allowing coal companies to pollute without limits.
25% :'The Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA is another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards,' Biden said in a statement.

*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.