Mark Levin explains yesterday’s SCOTUS decision on the EPA and what it really means (AUDIO)

The Right Scoop ^ | June 24 2014 | The Right Scoop

[PoloSec]

Mark Levin explained last night the history behind the Supreme Court’s decision on the EPA and what the decision really means.

In short, the decision was about more than just the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 and changing the Clean Air Act, but also about the separation of powers.

[CincyRichieRich]

For those like me who are too time-limited and/or too dumb to know if it was a good SCOTUS decision or not, what is the Cliff’s Notes?

[Ingtar]

Near as I could tell from the coverage, a few big donors got exempted and nothing else really changed.

[Servant of the Cross]

My two cents ... if the ruling was opposed by Kagan, the wide Latina, Breyer and RuthVader, it was progress (even if only limited progress) ...

It clarified that the high court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which said the Clean Air Act gives EPA power to limit emissions of greenhouse gases from vehicles didn't apply beyond vehicles if solely due to greenhouse gas emissions ... SCOTUS dials back EPA global warming rules ...

The justices said that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks authority in some cases to force companies to evaluate ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. “EPA’s interpretation is also unreasonable because it would bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,” Scalia continued. ”

Under Monday’s ruling, EPA can continue to require permits for greenhouse gas emissions for those facilities that already have to obtain permits because they emit other pollutants that EPA has long regulated.

But Scalia, writing for the court’s conservatives in the part of the ruling in which the justices split 5-4, said EPA could not require a permit solely on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions.