The problem with some Democrats is when they set a trap for their enemies they may not expect their intended victim might be smart enough to trap the Progressive.
Perhaps it’s because the subjectivity of a Progressive’s Feelings has a problem standing up to the objectivity of a Conservative’s Facts and Logic.
The latest apparent victim of their own trap is Progressive Rosa DeLauro, representing the dyed-blue Democrat State of Connecticut’s 3rd District and the Ranking Member of the US House Committee for Appropriations (who decides who gets how much of the taxpayer’s money), during her questioning of Lee Zeldin, Head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Trump.
Take a look at their lively exchange as Rep. DeLauro questions why the EPA wants to reduce their budget by 54% and save the US Taxpayer almost $5 BILLION:
|
To be honest, I wasn’t familiar with anything Lee Zeldin mentioned, but then again I’m not making $233,500 plus generous benefits & perks as a US Representative on a House committee. However, as my curiosity got the best of me, I schooled myself rather than be schooled by Mr. Zeldin.
Mr. Zeldin mentioned five (5) items during his impressive and necessary schooling of Progressive Rep. DeLauro: Let’s learn some learnings that DeLauro may have lacked!
The Major Questions Doctrine
“If an agency seeks to decide an issue of major national significance,
its action must be supported by clear statutory authorization.” (source)
| Translation: An agency (like the EPA) can’t tell the entire Nation what to do unless the Congress has allowed them to do that by law and the court has told them it’s legal. Although this doctrine was first contemplated in 1986 (by Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer) it wasn’t used by the US Supreme Court until 2014. |
He also mentioned Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. Originally passed in 1970, it “defines the EPA’s responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation’s air quality and the stratospheric ozone layer”.
Section 202(a)(1) is also known as…
42 USC CHAPTER 85
SUBCHAPTER II, Part A, Section 7521 (2013 Edition)
“Emission standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines”
“The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare….[T]he Administrator shall consider…whether and to what extent the use of any device, system, or element of design causes, increases, reduces, or eliminates emissions of any unregulated pollutants…”
| Translation: As Administrator of the EPA Lee Zeldin can change the emission standards for new motor vehicles or their engines, and this apparently includes relaxing or eliminating an emissions standard. And Section 202 doesn’t mention Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant at all. |
And, finally, Mr. Zeldin mentioned three (3) Supreme Court rulings, none of which Rep. DeLauro appeared to be familiar with or wanted to discuss:
MICHIGAN ET AL.
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL .
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 14–46. Argued March 25, 2015—Decided June 29, 2015
“EPA interpreted §7412(n)(1)(A) unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants….EPA must consider cost—including cost of compliance—before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the Agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost.”
| Translation: When the EPA is deciding whether to issue or change a regulation they can’t ignore how much it will cost to comply with the new or revised regulation. |
WEST VIRGINIA ET AL.
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 20–1530. Argued February 28, 2022—Decided June 30, 2022
“Precedent teaches that there are ‘extraordinary cases’ in which the ‘history and the breadth of the authority that [the agency] has asserted,’ and the ‘economic and political significance’ of that assertion, provide a ‘reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress’ meant to confer such authority…Under this body of law, known as the major questions doctrine, given both separation of powers principles and a practical understanding of legislative intent, the agency must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the authority it claims.”
| Translation: A Federal Agency (like the EPA) must show that the US Congress gave them the power to do what they want to do or have done. Otherwise the Agency can’t do it or must stop doing it. |
LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL.
v.
RAIMONDO, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
No. 22–451. Argued January 17, 2024 — Decided June 28, 2024
“The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous…”
| Translation: If an agency (like the EPA) writes a Statute that a judicial court (such as the Supreme Court) doesn’t believe is legal or doesn’t fully understand the court isn’t allowed to trust the agency’s explanation as to why it’s legal and what it covers. |
So, when EPA Administrator Zeldin told Democrat DeLauro that he had done his homework he wasn’t kidding:
| The EPA only has powers granted to them by Congress, must consider the cost to comply with any regulation they want to issue or change, needs permission of Congress if they want to issue a regulation affecting the entire Nation, and can’t provide the only explanation as to why what they want to do is legal or what is covered by their action. |
Now, if I could only get Democrat Rep. Rosa DeLauro to read this… hold on a second, I just might have a way to do that…
(Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, and any interpretation I’ve given is neither legal advice nor thorough.)
Added Bonus!
Here’s a memeory for you to enjoy!
Thanks for Reading!
