Democrats Think Supreme Court’s EPA Power Plant Rules Hold Could Help Them Win Back Seats

They do, they really do

(The Hill) The Supreme Court’s halting of the Obama administration’s chief climate rule is a new spark in the race for the Senate.

Democrats and greens, who have long hoped to make climate change a flashpoint in November’s elections, say the court’s 5-4 stay order putting a hold on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan gives them a chance to make a strong case to voters in their push to win back the Senate this fall.

Republicans and energy industry strategists say they’re equally enthusiastic to use the case — which hinges on whether the Obama administration exerted too much authority over carbon emissions — to make a point about executive overreach and its support among Democrats.

The Senate is especially important for climate regulations. If the Supreme Court blocks the rule — a prospect for which opponents are bullish after the stay order — legislation would likely be the only way to go about instituting a carbon reduction plan.

Democrats running in key Senate races next year said they were angered by the Court’s decision to preempt the rule this early.

They can be angered all the want. It will be very amusing to see them support an executive over-reach that will increase the cost of energy, increase the cost of living, and cost people jobs. That sounds like a winning campaign slogan, does it not? Besides, all the court did was delay implementation of Obama’s plan, not scuttle it, at least till the plan has its day in court, as 27 States are suing to kill the plan.

But Frank Maisano, an energy specialist at the law and lobbying firm Bracewell, was doubtful that any development with the climate rule could change the fact that climate change consistently ranks low in voters’ priorities.

“This tends to relegate to a lower position on the spectrum,” he said. “In the grand scheme of a political campaign, this is probably not going to be a factor.”

There is that. But, hey, let Democrats tilt at windmills. Let them chase the Snip. Let them explain how it’s an excellent idea to increase the power the of the federal government, especially the Executive, all to raise the cost of living for the middle and lower classes.

Meanwhile, the NY Times Editorial Board is having sour grapes over the court decision

The Supreme Court’s extraordinary decision on Tuesday to temporarily block the Obama administration’s effort to combat global warming by regulating emissions from power plants was deeply disturbing on two fronts.

There’s nothing extraordinary about any court putting a plan on hold until any suit on the plan has its full day in court.

It raised serious questions about America’s ability to deliver on Mr. Obama’s pledge in Paris in December to sharply reduce carbon emissions, and, inevitably, about its willingness to take a leadership role on the issue.

Except, most Americans couldn’t care less about this plan, especially if it will raise our costs and eliminate jobs. Furthermore, the plan came out months prior to Obama’s Paris pledge, and, that’s his pledge, not America’s. If the plans are so great, why did he not submit them to the duly elected legislators?

And with all the Republican-appointed justices lining up in a 5-to-4 vote to halt the regulation before a federal appeals court could rule on it, the court also reinforced the belief among many Americans that the court is knee-deep in the partisan politics it claims to stand above. While the court’s action was not a ruling on the merits of the case, it will delay efforts to comply with the regulation and sends an ominous signal that Mr. Obama’s initiative, known as the Clean Power Plan, could ultimately be overturned.

What the NY Times fails to do is explain why States should have to comply with this Executive order when they are suing to stop it. They also fail to explain why they’re OK with raising the cost of living for the middle and lower classes.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Democrats Think Supreme Court’s EPA Power Plant Rules Hold Could Help Them Win Back Seats”

  1. Dana says:

    You need to put The Hill article in blockquotes.

  2. John says:

    I guess that Supreme decision wasn’t really the knockout/fight ender you thought it was
    At this point the last court decision was a win for Obama, it is just being delayed by the appeal not overturned

  3. John says:

    And Teach it’s a Snipe not a snip
    What did they teach you at that prep school?

  4. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host concluded with:

    They also fail to explain why they’re OK with raising the cost of living for the middle and lower classes.

    Given that your two most left-wing commenters, the J Boys, have told us that they are very well-to-do, perhaps your statement should be directed to Jeffrey and John: why do they want to raise the costs of living for the people they claim to champion?

    I’m not poor now, but I grew up poor, very poor, and I remember what it was like to write out the bills, then put the date I could mail them out in the upper left hand corner of the envelope, so they’d be covered by the right paychecks. I remember loving those five-paycheck months, because those four months out of the year meant being able to go five weeks between paying the sparktricity bill. I remember when mom had to stretch a dollar to feed three kids, meaning plenty of meals were “tuna stuff,” which was a can of tuna, mixed in with a can of Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom soup, over saltine crackers, or peanut butter on crackers and chicken noodle soup. I remember our own meals, my wife and I having two daughters to feed, with fried chicken livers, rice and spinach. I’ve had to eat Ramen Noodles, 20¢ a pack, because they were at least filling, because that was all we could afford.

    This is why the Democrats have lost the white working class voters. The left are just so good at proposing great new programs that will Make The World Better, without ever considering what some people have to do to make ends meet.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Little D Boy,

    Did you ever expand on your statement about building roads?

    Anyway, the right-wing faux concern for the poor and working classes would ring truer if you weren’t in the pocket of the union busting, low wage supporting, tax cuts for the wealthy, shipping jobs overseas, cutting Social Security/Medicare Republicans. The white working class is convinced that their problems come from Mexicans taking their jobs and lazy Negroes taking all their taxes as welfare. The pressure on the middle class comes from low wages because of high unemployment and union busting.

    Your dogma, your mantra, of trickle down economics has failed America and has little hope to ever help us recover our middle class. When you cut federal taxes for the wealthy and corporations whom do you think has to make up the difference with state, local, and federal payroll taxes to pay for schools, police, firemen, roads and bridges?

    I would eliminate all payroll taxes and pay for old age pensions and healthcare out of general revenues. We should reinvigorate our progressive tax system so we can decrease the burden on local services. Universal healthcare would save billions. We should subsidize renewable energy sources until they are competitive with subsidized fossil fuels. We should invest heavily in our deteriorating infrastructure making certain we have tight controls over the contractors to keep them from screwing the taxpayers.

    Libertarians are like cats. They are totally dependent on someone else but think they are totally independent.

  6. Dana says:

    The sillier of the J Boys wrote:

    I would eliminate all payroll taxes and pay for old age pensions and healthcare out of general revenues.

    Translation: you would convert Social Security into a welfare program, bearing no relation at all into what people paid in, and being means tested as to how much, or even if, a retiree received a pension.

    Wouldn’t that be great? You’d require the 85-year old lady to make her way down to the welfare office to re-apply for her benefits every year or so, rather than simply have her eligible when she reached retirement age, as long as she had paid into the system for the required number of quarters.

    I wonder how many current retirees would be too proud to go down to the welfare office to apply for their pensions once we adopted ‘your’ system?

    Of course, your system would have what the left would see as an advantage: having even more people putting on the pressure to raise taxes on the most productive Americans to give what they have earned to those who are less productive.

  7. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Universal healthcare would save billions.

    And yet we keep seeing stories about how Obysmalcare has sent premiums through the roof. Why, it’s almost as though what you said isn’t true!

  8. david7134 says:

    Your analysis is a joke. I would point out your many errors, but you know them and so does everyone on this site. It does little to educated you with your hate and prejudice.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Little D Boy or dava, dave, dana, whatever… you D Boys are all alike,

    Do you get paid by the government to build stuff? Really? And Littler D Boy or dava, whatever, bilks taxpayers out of millions each year “treating” poor patients he despises.

    Little D Boy, there would be no reason that anything should change with old age pensions except the way we pay for it. The rest is just right-wing cruelty.

    So contractors getting paid by the government is OK, doctors collecting Medicare and Medicaid payments OK, collecting Social Security and Medicare payments well in excess of what was paid in also OK. Just don’t allow 7-11, KFC and McDonalds’ clerks or WalMart “associates” access to affordable healthcare or to receive food assistance for their children. Why? Do you really think Jesus sides with you on this one?

    Do you consider yourself one of the productive members, taking money from taxpayers as you do?

Pirate's Cove