This where the extremes of politics end up joining—the system is rigged and corrupt, it’s can’t give what we want, so it must be delegitimized and ignore the voters. It’s voters, not the mysterious “rich guys”, that elect our officials. The “rich guys” are either good, if they’re on our side and evil, hidden powers, if we disagree with them.
This argument is disengenous, as clearly some 80% of the voters support increased use of alternative energy, but a handful of Senators can block it. This is what I meant by carrying out the will of the party, rather than that of the people.
The EPA, to my knowledge, is not elected, not accountable to the voters and mostly populated with civil servants. Like any bureaucracy, there devoted to expanding their little empires and exercising their powers rathe arbitrarily. Oft times incompetently, see below. Saying the President or V-P are accountable to the voters is meaningless. Voters that are knowledgeable of specific EPA rulings are rare and usually harmed or benefited by the actions.
This argument makes no sense. Congress is accountable but the President is not? The EPA is operated by the executive branch, who are elected. The notion of an unaccountable bureaucracy is popular with Trump supporters, but is clearly not the reality. Trump was unable to overturn the election because the bureaucracy followed the law, and were accountable.
The Congress and state legislatures need to act in definitive, clearly enunciated laws giving any administrative entity their powers to act. The CAA never, until the Obama Administration and Mass v. EPA, considered GHG as a pollutant under the law to be regulated. If the voters want GHG to be regulated, the voters can vote in a Congress and demand action. The “quirk” of the wording is exactly what the law turns on.
Congress wrote the Clean Air Act specifically with an evolving BESR definition, because they understood both pollutants & technology would emerge and evolve, and EPA policy would need to emerge and evolve with it. That is what the EPA has done, and that policy has the support of some 80% of Americans. The Court has chosen to interpret BESR in a narrow & limited fashion, that the majority believes was not the original intent of the Act, or of Congress.
The net effect of this is to throw up a roadblock, saying that Congress must confirm what Congress has already said, in the minds of most people. But special interests will allow a handful of Senators to also throw up a roadblock. So in the end, nothing will be done. Which is the obvious intent, and why the action is seen as political. It's a way to carry out the will of the party, instead of the people.