Yvette Gagum
4/5/2016 06:52:23 pm
Although I realize how important the CPP and EPA are in regulating Pollution and Climate control, I agree with the Supreme Court's decision to grant a stay. It's important to not repeat the "Michigan v EPA case, in which the EPA did not think of how they would get funding for certain programs and regulations they planned to start. I think it would be best for the government and the country if we placed a stay on the CPP until everything is cleared up in lower(or this) courts so that the CPP knows exactly what they can and will do without any further interference with courts.
Reply
Imelda Fragoza
4/7/2016 07:20:59 pm
I agree that the EPA is an important environmental initiative, but that it's power should be checked.
Reply
Ryan Schwarz
4/10/2016 05:01:35 pm
Exactly even the fact that everything is not clear shows that things were rushed to try and get this program implemented something that should not be done
Reply
Lupita Durazo
4/10/2016 10:37:39 pm
i like your comment the most because you're the only one recognizing the importance of the EPA.. I do agree with you and the court's to grant a stay. I think the stay should be as short as possible, however, because I think the Earth is very important..
Reply
4/10/2016 10:47:01 pm
I agree. The EPA should have at least thought of some way to obtain funding instead of just trying to execute a plan with no concern of budget. When everything is calmed down, then we can see how it turns out. Right now though, it is an impossible task.
Reply
Deanna Strayer
4/11/2016 08:16:09 am
Yeah, man. Two words: money management . you can't just jump headlong into things without a plan at this scale.
Deanna Strayer
4/11/2016 08:09:11 am
I like that you acknowledge the importance of the EPA as a whole but that they need to think things through and not just go full speed ahead.
Reply
Imelda Fragoza
4/7/2016 07:19:17 pm
I agree with the court placing a stay on the EPA's Clean Power Plan because the jurisdiction and authority of the EPA should be evaluated and better defined. It is evident that if 29 states also want this stay, there is a wide spread concern about the EPA's authority and therfore a need to look into it.
Reply
Yvette Gagum
4/7/2016 08:51:32 pm
I totally agree. It is best to stop something you think is doing things wrong so you can evaluate it better and check it's powers. After all the Supreme Court doesn't seem to have enough information to correctly rule on this issue, it being so complex.
Reply
Ryan Schwarz
4/10/2016 05:00:37 pm
Even the fact that the Supreme Court has to rule on something like this shows an overstepping of power somewhere along the line, even if it is for a good cause like climate change rules need to be followed
Lupita Durazo
4/10/2016 10:41:47 pm
So basically what everyone is saying is that the courts need information.. Who is supposed to get the information? Is it the EPA that is supposed to bring the information or does the court have to do some investigation? Random and doesn't really have to do anything with Yvette's comment..
Jacob Acuña
4/11/2016 07:49:35 am
I also totally agree, better to reevaluate and work out all the kinks than implement an already broken proposal.
Jerbear
4/11/2016 08:08:33 am
I agree Imeldo i think that the EPA like many other branches tries to grasp for as much power as possible. And need their powers and limits defined and monitored.
Reply
Robert Medina
4/11/2016 08:53:25 am
I feel yes, they should better define the role of the EPA in regard to the Clean Air Act however, by enforcing the CPP, EPA is trying to help regulate restrictions prevalent in the Act. Looking at the abundance of states suing EPA, an overwhelming majority are almost all Republican Attorney Generals... in a Democratic presidency, this is not unlikely.
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
4/12/2016 07:56:23 am
Better defining the powers of the EPA would greatly increase the clarity of the situation. Even the EPA doesn't know it's limits because bureaucracies weren't written in the constitution. So they can basically do whatever they want until someone tells them to stop.
Reply
Ryan Schwarz
4/10/2016 04:59:21 pm
I would have to agree with Yvette and Imelda that all this is definitely an overstep by the EPA and in part by Obama's administration, in fact it seems to tie in to what we just talked with the buearacraucy be able to almost legslate it's own laws and enforce them as well as the power of excecutive action, I believe the stay should be granted until thing can be sorted out
Reply
Kynzie Watahomigie
4/10/2016 08:57:16 pm
I agree with Ryan. If a bureaucracy has the power to act like an executive branch of government then it should be checked as so.
Reply
Robert Medina
4/11/2016 07:30:49 am
I do not agree, I instead think, who will enforce the Clean Air Act? Are we supposed to create yet another environmental program such as the EPA, further beurocratising the government? I instead think that the EPA is justified in reducing the emissions of power plants because that was granted to them under the executive branch and further protected by Mass. v EPA in which they were legally justified. Now check the power?
Reply
Jerbear
4/11/2016 08:11:03 am
Although I agree that the EPA should be enforcing the CAA they are still subject to the courts decision. After all it is merely the EPA's job to enforce the laws, not interpret them that is the courts job.
Madeline Arbogast
4/12/2016 08:00:10 am
The only problem is that the CAA hasn't been interpreted by the courts yet, so the EPA is doing what they think they need to in order to enforce the law that has been delegated to them. I don't think they should be punished or written of as corrupt or anything, just that their role. as well as other bureaucracies'. should be better defined by the courts and if that makes their job harder, so be it.
Kynzie Watahomigie
4/10/2016 08:54:15 pm
I agree with the court's decision because there is obvious concern over whether or the not EPA is using its authority correctly. Improper money managing can really cause problems such as the EPA's use of large quantities of money in "Michigan v. EPA". Therefore with the stay there is time for the EPA to reevaluate and figure out the kinks in their case.
Reply
Jacob Acuña
4/11/2016 07:47:58 am
I agree with Kynzie. There are certain sections that must be revised in order for them not to overstep the delicate line between federal and state jurisdiction.
Reply
Lupita Durazo
4/10/2016 10:09:57 pm
"Do not ignore the linked articles" why is there like 30 linked articles. I would just like to say that I did ignore the linked articles. So I agree with the courts decision to grant a stay, although I think it is important that this remains a priority because save the planet save the earth peace & love. Ryan's point the bureaucracy's gaining too much power is brilliant, wish I would've thought of that.. But it is important that the supreme court is stepping in on this case, it can have effects on other bureaucracy's.
Reply
4/10/2016 10:42:59 pm
I agree with the courts stay on the decision on Michigan vs EPA. From what it seems to me, it looks like either the EPA is either overstepping their bounds on their power or forgetting the complete requirements of their job. I do believe that we need a change in how we handle things now, and by that I mean less fossil fuels. I mean, from a biological standpoint, fossil fuel emissions are a problem that should have been started at least a decade ago, but that doesn't mean that the EPA can overstep bounds and give unrealistic orders. A problem should like this should be handled immediately, but half the fight is making it a manageable solution. That is something you just can't leave out.
Reply
Payson
4/10/2016 11:19:20 pm
Wow I'm surprised to see that everyone so far has taken a more conservative stance on this subject, but I suppose this one is pretty cut and dry. The courts decision to grant a stay is the safe move and it stops the EPA from, as a couple people have said in a few different ways, overstepping their bounds
Reply
Payson
4/10/2016 11:13:45 pm
I think that granting a stay is completely justified even if you don't think there is any issue with the CPP because a stay would act as a safety net in case there is a problem. It would be arrogant to disallow the stay when the act is clearly being questioned by multiple reliable, though obviously biased, sources. The Michigan v EPA case should serve as a cautionary tale so that the current court does not repeat the past court's mistake.
Reply
Jacqueline Fonseca
4/11/2016 10:32:11 am
I agree with Payson on how the stay can help as a safety net so that another problem does not occur. It shows that the Supreme Court is looking in the past to make judgment for the present.
Reply
Laura Jackson
4/11/2016 12:50:37 pm
I agree - I think that the court should learn from their past and continue to improve in their future actions. The stay will give the Supreme Court and the EPA time to iron out their plans and make sure it is, in fact, what's best for the country both legally and morally. Although some may consider it wasted time, I think doing this will actually end up clearing many future complications.
Reply
Robert Medina
4/11/2016 07:26:46 am
I would think that this is not an over step by the EPA to regulate the emissions of power plants and thus enforce the Clean Air Act. Looking at Massachusetts vs EPA, the right to regulate emissions was granted to them. I think that if they don't enforce section III of the Clean Air Act and follow with regulations, who will?
Reply
Deanna Strayer
4/11/2016 07:46:24 am
I think that it was totally justifiable to grant a stay as a precautionary method even if you don't think it's necessary. The act is being questioned by a huge amount of sources and that's enough cause for concern. The EPA is a super important entity but it does need to have regulations and checks. It can't just do whatever in the name of the environment.
Reply
Deanna Strayer
4/11/2016 07:48:06 am
EDIT: Also, you can't ignore the Michigan vs. EPA case or the same mistakes will happen again.
Reply
Jacob Acuña
4/11/2016 07:46:29 am
I definitely believe that it was the right judgement of the Court to further review the EPA's expansion. There are some aspects of the proposed expansion that must be looked at in order to further understand its proposals.
Reply
Jerbear
4/11/2016 08:03:22 am
"i dont care what the Supreme Court says"... jk yes i do. I think that the supreme court may have been right but i feel like when i read this article i got no real substance out of it. I feel as though it just talked about what the Court did to block this, not why other than the regulation was "an aggressive interpretation". But on the other hand it is the courts job to interpret the laws not the executive branch and its bureaucracy's. Therefore i suppose the court did the right thing by putting a stay on the EPA with the CPP, this is the purpose of checks and balances. The executive branch in particular over the years has tried to grasp for power it does not really have and uses a lot of vague reasoning to try to cover that they don't have the power to begin with, and sometimes they need a check to put them in line.
Reply
Jacqueline Fonseca
4/11/2016 10:30:00 am
I agree with decision made by the Supreme Court. They made a decision based on what they believe will help the country and what they are required to do for the country. It is their job to decide on cases and to be a different regulation on the bureaucracys and the excuitive powers.
Reply
Laura Jackson
4/11/2016 12:47:54 pm
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision to grant a stay. If they hadn't then the EPA would have continued on and likely have encountered many more legal issues as they advanced with their plans. This way, any legal issues can be ironed out beforehand and their boundaries set. If the EPA continues now, unchecked, then their goal would only be hindered more by later complications. However, I do think the stay should be a short one. The EPA has good intentions and should be allowed to carry out its policies as soon as possible (once those policies are checked).
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
4/12/2016 07:52:45 am
I think the court made the right call because the EPA's goal, like all bureaucracies, is to gain more power over the other bureaucracies. It's job is not to interpret the law, that falls on the courts but in order to enforce the law as a part of the executive branch, the need to know what the laws mean and so I think that the EPA is right in what they are doing but the Court made the right precautionary move the grant a stay on their actions until further review. This review should not be very lengthy however, because the EPA does many important things.
Reply
Barter
4/12/2016 02:32:08 pm
Not a very Weberian view. Couldn't the EPA just be doing the task assigned it?
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2020
Categories |