The Supreme Court’s ruling against the EPA could prove to be a disaster for EVERY government agency. Also, the Wisconsin attorney general is trying to hold more than a dozen companies accountable for poisoning citizens in the state with PFAS chemicals. Mike Papantonio & Farron Cousins discuss more.
Check out our merch by visiting our store: https://www.buyrof.com/
Subscribe to our podcast: http://www.ROFPodcast.com
Become a member today!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYWIEbibRcZav6xMLo9qWWw/join
Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!: https://www.patreon.com/TheRingofFire
Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!
Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/theringoffire
Be sociable! Follow us on:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RingofFireRadio
Twitter: https://twitter.com/RingofFireMedia
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ringoffirenetwork/
*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.
The Supreme Court's ruling against the EPA could prove to be a disaster for every government agency. Wow. We take a look at this, you take this ruling on the EPA and you say, well, it's just really the EPA. No, it's not the EPA, is it? The EPA is, it's the beginning. It's the beginning of this thing that where you, where, where what you're doing is redesigning how regulations take place. You're, you're saying to regulators in general, there's some things that you can't regulate without the help of Congress. Right?
Right. Because the whole EPA ruling was, yeah, I know you want to regulate under the clean air act, these certain emissions from the coal-fired power plants, but the legislation didn't explicitly say you could do it. Therefore you cannot do it until Congress writes the legislation and says you can. So horrible for the environment, horrible for human health. But think of the implications for OSHA, for the FDA.
Mm-hmm.
You know, all of these, the SEC.
Mm-hmm.
Oh, we didn't say you could prosecute Wall Street criminals in the legislation. So of course you can't do that. I mean, the, the possibilities are endless about how this can be reinterpreted for other agencies.
The term is, the term that they used in the order was major question doctrine. You're gonna hear that term. Major question doctrine is say, it says that there's some things that are just too big for regulators to do. And we're gonna take that power away from the regulators. As you say, EPA, FDA, SEC, whatever the regulator may be and we're gonna require that Congress actually passed some legislation to step into that, into that space. They did say in the opinion that we're only gonna have this major question doctrine apply only in extraordinary cases. Really?
Well, and the EPA had basically already ruled in this, not the EPA, excuse me, the Supreme Court had already ruled twice that the EPA did have the authority to do it before coming with this decision saying, oh wait, no, you don't.
Yeah.
So I don't think that was a, you know, extraordinary circumstance. We're gonna see 'em come after other agents.
Yeah. It's a fundamental change in the court's position on regulation.
The Wisconsin attorney general is trying to hold more than a dozen companies accountable for poisoning citizens in the state with PFAS chemicals. You and I have done this story again and again. I don't know, here again, how often do you see this story covered in the media?
Oh, never. This was a blurb kind of in the Chicago Sun Times. Had it not been for that I wouldn't have seen it anywhere.
Okay. You know why that is? 3M is one of the ugly ugliest. DuPont is one of the companies that we dealt with. We dealt with them up in the Ohio River Valley. But the truth is, 3M has contaminated water to where people, people, they don't understand that this stuff will kill you. It causes cancer. It causes birth defects. And everybody, even if I were to tell, I was with some folks this weekend, they were, they were talking about, well, we just got this notice about PFAS in our water, think everything's okay. No, everything is not okay. I mean, give me your take on it. You followed this story as much as I have.
Yeah. I mean, look, this, this is, it's in my body right now. It's in your body. 98% of people watching this, it's in your body right now and it's bioaccumulative. It's going to build up over time.
Mm-hmm.
So what this Wisconsin attorney general is doing here is, is really trying to get his state to do what other states have done and say, listen, we've gotta hold these people accountable. It's 16 companies, 3M, Tyco Fire, BASF, all these other companies as well saying, you guys knew you were poisoning us. You told nobody.
Right.
You let it happen.
Check out our merch by visiting our store: https://www.buyrof.com/
Subscribe to our podcast: http://www.ROFPodcast.com
Become a member today!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYWIEbibRcZav6xMLo9qWWw/join
Support us by becoming a monthly patron on Patreon, and help keep progressive media alive!: https://www.patreon.com/TheRingofFire
Spread the word! LIKE and SHARE this video or leave a comment to help direct attention to the stories that matter. And SUBSCRIBE to stay connected with Ring of Fire's video content!
Support Ring of Fire by subscribing to our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/theringoffire
Be sociable! Follow us on:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RingofFireRadio
Twitter: https://twitter.com/RingofFireMedia
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ringoffirenetwork/
*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.
The Supreme Court's ruling against the EPA could prove to be a disaster for every government agency. Wow. We take a look at this, you take this ruling on the EPA and you say, well, it's just really the EPA. No, it's not the EPA, is it? The EPA is, it's the beginning. It's the beginning of this thing that where you, where, where what you're doing is redesigning how regulations take place. You're, you're saying to regulators in general, there's some things that you can't regulate without the help of Congress. Right?
Right. Because the whole EPA ruling was, yeah, I know you want to regulate under the clean air act, these certain emissions from the coal-fired power plants, but the legislation didn't explicitly say you could do it. Therefore you cannot do it until Congress writes the legislation and says you can. So horrible for the environment, horrible for human health. But think of the implications for OSHA, for the FDA.
Mm-hmm.
You know, all of these, the SEC.
Mm-hmm.
Oh, we didn't say you could prosecute Wall Street criminals in the legislation. So of course you can't do that. I mean, the, the possibilities are endless about how this can be reinterpreted for other agencies.
The term is, the term that they used in the order was major question doctrine. You're gonna hear that term. Major question doctrine is say, it says that there's some things that are just too big for regulators to do. And we're gonna take that power away from the regulators. As you say, EPA, FDA, SEC, whatever the regulator may be and we're gonna require that Congress actually passed some legislation to step into that, into that space. They did say in the opinion that we're only gonna have this major question doctrine apply only in extraordinary cases. Really?
Well, and the EPA had basically already ruled in this, not the EPA, excuse me, the Supreme Court had already ruled twice that the EPA did have the authority to do it before coming with this decision saying, oh wait, no, you don't.
Yeah.
So I don't think that was a, you know, extraordinary circumstance. We're gonna see 'em come after other agents.
Yeah. It's a fundamental change in the court's position on regulation.
The Wisconsin attorney general is trying to hold more than a dozen companies accountable for poisoning citizens in the state with PFAS chemicals. You and I have done this story again and again. I don't know, here again, how often do you see this story covered in the media?
Oh, never. This was a blurb kind of in the Chicago Sun Times. Had it not been for that I wouldn't have seen it anywhere.
Okay. You know why that is? 3M is one of the ugly ugliest. DuPont is one of the companies that we dealt with. We dealt with them up in the Ohio River Valley. But the truth is, 3M has contaminated water to where people, people, they don't understand that this stuff will kill you. It causes cancer. It causes birth defects. And everybody, even if I were to tell, I was with some folks this weekend, they were, they were talking about, well, we just got this notice about PFAS in our water, think everything's okay. No, everything is not okay. I mean, give me your take on it. You followed this story as much as I have.
Yeah. I mean, look, this, this is, it's in my body right now. It's in your body. 98% of people watching this, it's in your body right now and it's bioaccumulative. It's going to build up over time.
Mm-hmm.
So what this Wisconsin attorney general is doing here is, is really trying to get his state to do what other states have done and say, listen, we've gotta hold these people accountable. It's 16 companies, 3M, Tyco Fire, BASF, all these other companies as well saying, you guys knew you were poisoning us. You told nobody.
Right.
You let it happen.
