Supreme Court Sabotages Fight Against Climate Change

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

52% : The Court today issues what is really an advisory opinion on the proper scope of the new rule EPA is considering.
49% :"By insisting instead that an agency can promulgate an important and significant climate rule only by showing 'clear congressional authorization' at a time when the court knows that Congress is effectively dysfunctional," he said, "the court threatens to upend the national government's ability to safeguard the public health and welfare at the very moment when the United States, and all nations, are facing our greatest environmental challenge of all: climate change."
48% : And no other provision in the Clean Air Act suggests that Congress meant to foreclose EPA from selecting that system; to the contrary, the Plan's regulatory approach fits hand-in-glove with the rest of the statute.
36% : In the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision on abortion, Chief Justice John Roberts quibbled with the scope of the Court's demolition of precedents.
36% : In any event, the implications of West Virginia v. EPA are hard to overstate.
34% : But in West Virginia v. EPA, Roberts wrote the majority opinion, stopping the EPA from adjusting its regulatory regime without a new, explicit grant of authority from Congress.

*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.