What is it that keeps getting pushed down the throats of conservatives, Christians, Constitutionalists, libertarians, Republicans, and in general, non-Democrats again — the Supreme Court rulings become the “law of the land?” It is the Democrat/Liberal/progressive stance when it comes to rulings that lean in their favor or totally reject conservative, Christian, constitutionalist, libertarian, and Republican values and principles. How will liberal progressive Democrats respond now to the Supreme Court’s decision to “halt enforcement” of Hussein Soetoro’s plan to address climate change?
In a split decision on Tuesday, the Supreme Court froze the sweeping plan until all legal challenges have been resolved. It appears the opposition to Hussein Soetoro’s sweeping power grab presented a solid, strong argument against the plan. The coalition of 27 Republican-led states gained a small victory after a federal appeals court refused to halt progression last month.
Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?
The split in the Supreme Court was along ideological lines with the four liberal justices stating they would have denied the request.
According to TheBlaze:
Appellate arguments are set to begin June 2.
The compliance period starts in 2022, but states must submit their plans to the Environmental Protection Administration by September or seek an extension.
Many states opposing the plan depend on economic activity tied to such fossil fuels as coal, oil and gas. They argued that power plants will have to spend billions of dollars to begin complying with a rule that may end up being overturned.
Implementation of the rules is considered essential to the United States meeting emissions-reduction targets in a global climate agreement signed in Paris last month. The Obama administration and environmental groups also say the plan will spur new clean-energy jobs.
To convince the high court to temporarily halt the plan, opponents had to convince the justices that there was a “fair prospect” the court would strike down the rule. The court also had to consider whether denying a stay would cause irreparable harm to the states and utility companies affected.
As has been stated before by many, and completely ignored by the Hussein Soetoro administration, climate change caused by human activity is a farce. The United Nations IPCC admitted its models were not accurate due to being unable to account for all variables since not everything is known about the Earth. Scientists who question climate change have proven the models cannot stand up to the scientific method. Weather data stations around the globe had data regarding temperature measurements altered by as much as one degree Celsius by monitors to prop up the rhetoric on the farce of climate change. Atmospheric gas measurements have not seen a rise in “greenhouse gases” of a significant amount to alter the percentage present in the air. And, carbon dioxide is necessary for plant photosynthesis. Moreover, other studies have shown the sun is headed into a cooling phase, which affects the climate on the Earth.
Climate change is being used as a global wealth redistribution plan to bring wealthier nations down to the level of the Third World. It is a means of destroying stable power grids, replacing reliable fossil fuel power generation with less reliable forms such as wind, solar and water. While environmentalists, progressives and liberals buy into this farce to “save the planet,” they forget about all the “electronic toys” they use that require “recharging” through the power grid they seek to destroy.
“The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030.” And, remember, the “climate change agreement” made in Paris is designed to force the united States compliance in the wealth redistribution scheme. And, China exceeds the “greenhouse gas” emissions of the united States.
However, nothing has stopped Hussein Soetoro and his EPA goons from requiring States to submit their plans to the government for reducing their “carbon dioxide” output from power plants by September or seek an extension. The compliance period begins in 2022. A lot can change in six years; however, the reliability of power production using “alternatives” to fossil fuels are more than six years away from being developed into a reliable form of energy production for an entire nation, if at all.
The costs for States to implement the “regulations” developed by supposed intellectual political pawns will run into the billions. Where is the money to come from for the cost? It would be the American public users of electricity through higher costs. If the increase in consumer cost doesn’t cover the bill, the other option is to implement a “carbon footprint” tax. The question no one on the climate change side can answer is, “How is money from the population supposed to cleanse the Earth of the evil ‘greenhouse gas’ carbon dioxide, expended by living creatures and power plants, and the dreaded methane, which is expended by almost every living creature?”
No one knows the answer because no one has all the variables of the Earth to plug into the equation and climate change promoters do not look at all the consequences. Considering the goal is to reduce carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere to zero, where does that leave living creatures on the planet? Again, the administration and climate change proponents do not care as long as they can part your money and possessions from you to them.
With the Supreme Court placing a hold on the forced implementation of these regulations, liberal progressive climate change supporters will more than likely declare the administration doesn’t need to abide by the hold, just as Hussein Soetoro violates other Supreme Court decisions concerning his “plans.” Yet, these same individuals declare sodomite marriage and abortion as the “law of the land” because of Supreme Court rulings. It will be the same tired old “double standard” bull manure as usual — if it promotes the agenda, SC rules; if not, SC doesn’t.
