Sen. Elizabeth Warren tested positive for COVID on Sunday, the Massachusetts Democrat shared in a tweet. “I regularly test for COVID & while I tested negative earlier this week, today I tested positive with a breakthrough case,” the progressive former presidential candidate said. “Thankfully, I am only experiencing mild symptoms & am grateful for the protection provided against serious illness that comes from being vaccinated & boosted.” Numerous members of Congress have tested positive for COVID. Last week, Rep. Brett Guthrie, a Republican from Kentucky, announced he had contracted the dreade...
Stories Chosen For You
The Supreme Court finished its term by stripping the authority of the federal government: CNN analyst
Looking at the collective term of the Supreme Court, the justices have slowly eroded the power of the executive and legislative branches of government, according to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.
The Supreme Court recently eliminated powers of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce regulations and disputed President Joe Biden's elimination of the Remain in Mexico policy and sent it back to a court where a pro-Donald Trump judge has been hostile to the administration.
Talking about the cases, Toobin explained, "conservatives [have] been so successful in the Supreme Court this term and for a generation have been pushing on these issues. And one of their great causes has been to limit the power of the federal government. Especially the administrative agencies."
The Constitution documents the separation of powers between the three branches of government, which were supposed to be equal in power. As the court strikes down laws passed by Congress, or the power of federal agencies to regulate corporations the question becomes if the Court is creating an imbalance in the equality of power.
"The major question doctrine and the Chevron deference both deal with how much power administrative agencies should have," said Toobin.
Judicial correspondent Jessica Schneider explained that the court clearly came down against the Biden administration, limiting their power to use the EPA to regulate deadly toxins and protect Americans. The court decided 6-3 to limit the EPA's ability to regulate power plants.
"The Supreme Court saying here that the EPA does not have that broad authority that the lower court said it did to regulate the power plant industry and emissions in general," said Schneider. "This is actually reversing the lower court. This is sending it back to the lower court, but this will have broad implications for the EPA's powers moving forward. So I want to just take you through some of the procedures here."
"Basically, the lower court had said here that an Obama rule, which regulated carbon emissions from power plants and more broadly regulated power plants and how they should be shifting to renewable resources instead of just coal. They said that rule was okay, that a subsequent Trump rule was not okay. But the Supreme Court now reversing that and saying that, no, the EPA did not have this broad authority that the Obama administration said it did."
Essentially, the Court is saying that if Congress didn't give specific powers to regulate these issues then they can't do it. Congress would have to spell out specifically that the EPA can regulate such things.
"We were just talking about the major questions doctrine," said host Poppy Harlow. "This court this term has used that doctrine to say no vaccine mandate, OSHA, you can't do that, you can't have an eviction moratorium, and no, EPA, you cannot issue this. That's a huge deal!"
Toobin agreed, noting that the case could be worse for the agencies under the executive branch.
"Chief Justice Roberts' opinion does not mention the Chevron case at all. Justice [Elena] Kagan's dissent mentions it several times. So they don't explicitly overrule the Chevron doctrine. It is sort of a classic Chief Justice [John] Roberts ruling. But clearly the direction he's going is quite clear, which is towards limiting the power of administrative agencies. But he does not go as far as some conservatives wanted in overruling the chevron case altogether. This decision is a defeat for the Biden administration. It's a defeat for the regulatory agencies and a defeat for the cause of limiting climate change, but it's not quite as bad a defeat on climate change."
See the explanation below.
supreme court restricts executive branch powers youtu.be
Conservative podcaster Steve Bannon accused President Joe Biden of being a "domestic terrorist" because he called the Supreme Court's ruling on abortion a "destabilizing" force in the United States.
During his War Room: Pandemic broadcast on Real America's Voice, Bannon complained that Biden had "trash[ed] the Supreme Court on foreign soil" while he was in Spain.
Bannon's guest, Mike Davis of The Article III Project, compared Biden to the Ku Klux Klan.
"This is what the Klan used to do," Davis argued. "They used to go to judges' homes and bring their mobs and they were upset if the Klan didn't like the way the federal judge was ruling for desegregation or some other civil rights case, they would just show up with their mobs."
Davis claimed that former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki "incited" mobs to protest outside of Supreme Court justices' homes.
Bannon, however, appeared to be irate about Biden's criticism of the court.
"But he just said on a global stage in front of the world that the problem, the biggest thing of destabilization in the United States -- in fact, he says, we don't have any problems, we're a world leader except for one problem!" Bannon shouted. "We're being destabilized because of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States!"
"Where is Merrick Garland?" he exclaimed. "Merrick Garland, instead of looking at the parents in Loudon County as domestic terrorists, you've got a domestic terrorist, he's sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave! Where's Merrick Garland?"
Watch the video below from Real America's Voice.
'It doesn't have a clue': Elena Kagan blasts conservative majority over 'frightening' decision on pollution
U.S. Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan rebuked the majority who stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of some of its regulatory powers.
The 6-3 ruling in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency limited the federal government's ability to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, which Kagan lamented in her dissent had weakened “the power to respond to the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.”
"The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling," she wrote. "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions."
"The Court appoints itself — instead of Congress or the expert agency — the decisionmaker on climate policy," Kagan concluded. "I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent."
The ruling was a significant victory for the coal mining and coal power industry, which had been targeted for tough limits in 2015 by the administration of then president Barack Obama in an effort to slash carbon pollution.
It was also a victory for conservatives fighting government regulation of industry, with the court's majority including three right-wing justices named by former president Donald Trump, who had sought to weaken the EPA.
While EPA had the power to regulate individual plants, the court ruled, Congress had not given it such expansive powers to set limits for all electricity generating units.
The majority justices said they recognized that putting caps on carbon dioxide emissions to transition away from coal-generated electricity "may be a sensible solution" to global warming.
But they said the case involved a "major question" of US governance and jurisprudence and that the EPA would have to be specifically delegated such powers by the legislature.
"It is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme," they said.
"A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body," they said.
With additional reporting by AFP