U.S. Politics

[Rick Plant]

A new NPR/Marist Poll has been conducted after the insane Extreme Court decision to overturn Roe. New polling shows Democrats have gained 2 points after Roe was overturned. Democrats lead by 5 points in May after the leaked draft of the Roe v. Wade decision and now it has increased 2 more points to 7 points after Roe was overturned. 

Democrats (48%) currently have the advantage over the Republicans (41%) among registered voters.

Here's more on what the polling found:

The NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll also shows that 51 percent of voters nationally say the ruling will make them more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who would back a law that would restore the protections of Roe versus 36% that would vote against a candidate with that intent.

56% of Americans are concerned that the Supreme Court’s decision could also jeopardize the rights to contraception, same-sex marriage, or same-sex relationships.

A majority of Americans (57%) think the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was politically motivated and not motivated by the law of the land (36%).

[Rick Plant]

Watch live: Jan. 6 committee to question 'surprise witness' Cassidy Hutchinson about Trump-Meadows efforts to overturn election

https://www.rawstory.com/jan-6-hearing-watch-live/

[Rick Plant]

Pennsylvania Attorney General holds rally in Philadelphia to 'protect abortion rights'

The Supreme Court overturned Roe V. Wade Friday, which had granted birth-givers the right to abortion since its passing in 1973.

PHILADELPHIA (WPVI) -- More than a hundred people rallied at the National Constitution Center Saturday to protest the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe V. Wade, eliminating the federal constitutional right to an abortion.

"We are not OK with government-mandated pregnancy," congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon told the crowd.

Protestors carried signs like "Get your laws off my body" and "Women will die" as they cheered on speakers, many of whom were Democratic politicians.

"My granddaughter is not going to have the same freedom I had and that my daughter had, and it's so upsetting to me," said Diana Becerra from Roxborough.

The Supreme Court overturned Roe V. Wade Friday, which had granted birth-givers the right to abortion since its passing in 1973.

"It gutted me. I am scared for my children. I'm scared for my children's children," said Ronna Dewey, who works with the mom activist group Red, Wine, and Blue.

The crowd heard from local, state, and federal representatives, including Joanna McClinton, a democrat representing the 191st house district in Pennsylvania.

"In the midst of a very dark Friday, I'm thrilled to know there is a glimmer of hope," she said as she stumped for Josh Shapiro, Pennsylvania's current attorney general. He is running on the Democratic ticket for governor.

"I trust the women of Pennsylvania to make decisions over their own bodies," Shapiro told the crowd.

Shapiro said he'll protect abortion rights in Pennsylvania, while his Republican opponent, Doug Mastriano, has said he'll make abortions illegal with no exceptions.

"It is clear that more and more issues will likely be coming to the states in future years," said Shapiro.

Action News reached out to state senator Mastriano and his campaign for a response but have not heard back.

The rally at City Hall was part of an even bigger movement across the country, "Bans Off Our Bodies," part of a nationwide day of action.

Similar abortion rights events were planned in more than 200 cities.

"I hope we're able to do this for like a week and keep going, because it's going to keep being an issue people shouldn't forget about it," said Deirdre French of Bristol, Pa.

https://6abc.com/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-national-constitution-center-protect-abortion-rights/11995271/

[Rick Plant]

A brand new Quinnipiac poll was just released today showing Georgia Senator Raphael Warnock with a huge 10 point lead over Trump stooge Herschel Walker. 

Georgia Senate:

Raphael Warnock 54%
Herschel Walker 44%

[Rick Plant]

The corrupt Federalist Society Extreme Court just gave a victory to big coal and polluters to keep destroying our planet which will continue to heat up the Earth and make weather more severe all over the world. Mitch McConnell stacked this Court for a reason so it can promote radical right wing policies for the GOP and their big business buddies.   

How the Supreme Court ruling will gut the EPA's ability to fight the climate crisis


Emissions rise from a power plant in Kentucky.

(CNN) - The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a major blow to climate action by handcuffing the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate planet-warming emissions from the country's power plants, just as scientists warn the world is running out of time to get the climate crisis under control.

It is a major loss for not only the Biden administration's climate goals, but it also calls into question the future of federal-level climate action and puts even more pressure on Congress to act to reduce emissions.
Experts tell CNN it could set the US back years on its path to rein in the climate crisis and its deadly, costly impacts.

The opinion makes it "more difficult to achieve larger-scale emissions reductions," Andres Restrepo, senior attorney for the Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program, told CNN. "To avoid the worst impacts of climate change we need to do a lot more and move a lot faster. That's why today's ruling is such a setback."

Why this case was so important for climate action

At the heart of Thursday's opinion was a question over the EPA's authority to regulate planet-warming emissions from power plants, which are a huge contributor to the climate crisis.

Around 25% of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions around the globe and in the US come from generating electricity, according to the EPA. And coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, powers about 20% of US electricity. Emissions from power production rose last year for the first time since 2014, an increase that was mainly driven by coal use.

The surge in fossil fuel use is worrying not only for Biden's climate goals -- the President, in his first months in office, pledged to slash US emissions in half by 2030 -- but also the planet.

"Failing to regulate heat-trapping emissions will harm people and ecosystems worldwide," said Kristina Dahl, a senior climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. "We're already dangerously behind what the science shows is necessary, and the court's majority has made solving the problem much more difficult."

Scientists have become increasingly urgent in their warnings that to make headway on the climate crisis, emissions need to not only be reduced going forward, but the world needs to develop ways to also remove the greenhouse gas that's been pumped into the atmosphere in decades past.

In a landmark report last year, scientists reported that the planet is warming faster than they had previously imagined it would. As it does, they said, extreme weather will become more deadly; water crises will develop and worsen; food insecurity will grow and disease will spread.

To avoid the worst consequences, the world must limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (it's already passed 1.1 degrees), and the only way to do that is to keep the vast majority of the Earth's remaining fossil fuel stores in the ground.

What the court said

The Supreme Court said the Clean Air Act does not give EPA broad authority to regulate planet-warming emissions from power plants. The agency still has options to regulate emissions, but the court said that the law does not empower the agency to put a limit on emissions and force power plants to move away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy.

"The one thing EPA won't be able to do is what the Clean Power Plan did," Richard Revesz, an environmental law expert at NYU School of Law told CNN.

The Clean Power Plan was an Obama-era rule that set a goal for each state to limit carbon emissions, while letting those states determine how to meet those goals. In many cases, ditching coal and natural gas in favor of solar and wind was the most economically viable solution.

Shifting from fossil fuels to renewables "is the most effective, efficient and lowest cost way of reducing greenhouse emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants," Restrepo said. "By taking that tool off the table, the court has removed EPA's most effective tool for controlling greenhouse gas pollution from existing power plants."

Environmental attorneys are digesting the Supreme Court's opinion and determining how the agency could act on climate change going forward.

"This may be about as bad as it could be in terms of limiting EPA's regulatory authorities," Revesz said. "This case by its nature provides significant constraints EPA's authority to regulate the power sector — but not other sectors of the economy" like transportation or industrial emissions.

Revesz said the EPA will now have to consider what action it can take within the confines of the ruling.
"For example, it might consider carbon capture and sequestration and see whether the costs are ones that are reasonable," Revesz told CNN.

Carbon capture and sequestration is where the carbon is scrubbed out of power plant emissions before it enters the atmosphere. It's an expensive technology and scientists have warned that it's not on its own a significant enough solution to power plant emissions.

Opening the door to more challenges

Kirti Datla, an attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit focused on litigating climate issues, said this case paves the way for Republican-led states and fossil fuel companies to challenge current and future EPA rules on planet-warming emissions.

"I think the biggest takeaway is that the court produced an opinion that did exactly what the challengers [GOP-led states and coal companies] wanted," Datla said.

In its opinion, the court cut back agency authority by invoking the Major Questions Doctrine -- a ruling that will impact the federal government's authority to regulate in other areas of climate policy, as well as regulation of the internet and worker safety. It says that the biggest issues should be decided by Congress itself, not agencies like the EPA.

"Prior to today, the court would look at [an agency] and say 'this decision is within your lane and expertise and we're going to defer to your technical decision here,'" said Jay Duffy, an attorney and expert on power plant emissions at the Clean Air Task Force. "Today, unless the actual rule you have chosen has been clearly authorized by the Congress, you don't have the authority to do it."

Duffy said that as agencies craft new rules, they will have to go back to Congress to get explicit authorization, assuming the court deems it important.

"It's surprisingly unprincipled," Duffy said. "It's a can of worms that has been opened and without much guidance as to how important is important. How major is major? I think it could create a lot of problems."

Carrie Jenks, the executive director of Harvard Law School's Environmental & Energy Law Program, shared Duffy's concern about the uncertain definition of a "major question."

"The court is saying you can't do big things without Congress speaking, so what is a big thing?" Jenks told CNN. "This doctrine is just starting to emerge from the court. This doctrine is starting to be more defined. I think they will continue to use Major Questions Doctrine to oppose EPA rulemakings."

The court in its opinion did not touch EPA's ability to regulate other sources of greenhouse gas emissions -- for example from vehicles, or methane emissions from oil and gas. But cases on those issues are already circulating in the lower courts and could eventually be elevated to the Supreme Court.

"This [Major Questions] Doctrine is just starting to emerge from the court; this doctrine is starting to be more defined," Jenks told CNN. "I think they will continue to use Major Questions Doctrine to oppose [future] EPA rulemakings."

What's next for the EPA

The Biden administration must now craft a regulation for power plant emissions that will fit within the confines of the Supreme Court's opinion.

Spokespeople for the White House and EPA said in statements they were reviewing the court's opinion and would work to move forward with a rule dealing with power plant emissions. The EPA has publicly committed that rule by March 2024, though it could move faster.

"While I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision, we are committed to using the full scope of EPA's authorities to protect communities and reduce the pollution that is driving climate change," EPA administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement. "We will move forward to provide certainty and transparency for the energy sector, which will support the industry's ongoing efforts to grow our clean energy economy."

Regan has previously said that the EPA will work on a strategy to combat other environmental pollutants coming from power plants, including cutting sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and coal ash waste from coal-fired power plants.

Even though those regulations deal with environmental pollution from power plants, they also have the effect of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

"Our lawyers will study the ruling carefully and we will find ways to move forward under federal law," a White House spokesperson said. An EPA spokesperson added the agency is still "committed to using the full scope of its existing authorities."

Practically, the court's ruling says the EPA can't write rules similar to the Obama-era Clean Power Plan. But it didn't explicitly say how EPA should regulate going forward, environmental law experts noted.

"The court is clear that the Clean Power Plan went too far, the court is much less clear on what EPA can do going forward," Datla said. "Everything in the opinion is going to be used as ammunition by groups that want to challenge what the Biden administration does next, but that doesn't mean the opinion doesn't leave room for EPA to act and hopefully it acts with some speed."

Datla added that EPA still has the ability to carefully look at the statute and "issue a regulation that tries to address this really huge source of emissions for this incredibly pressing problem."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/politics/epa-supreme-court-ruling-effect/index.html

[Rick Plant]

Rep. Sean Casten @RepCasten

Today, 6 radical, pro-pollution Supreme Court Justices bowed down to the same fossil fuel special interests that bankroll the radical, pro-pollution GOP politicians who appointed them to the highest court in the land.

What happens next hinges on our courage to act. My statement:



https://twitter.com/RepCasten/status/1542620594662948864

[Rick Plant]

President Biden at the G7 in Germany.

President Biden @POTUS

This morning I met with President @Sanchezcastejon and thanked him for hosting the NATO Summit and for Spain’s 40 years of contributions to Transatlantic security.

Together, we launched a joint declaration reaffirming our close partnership on addressing global challenges.



https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1541937411269206016


It was an honor to meet with His Majesty King Felipe VI of Spain today and reaffirm the enduring friendship between our nations.




Today, I left Germany's beautiful Schloss Elmau energized by the G7’s unified vision and ready to execute our newly-launched Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment.

This coalition is stronger than ever.

Watch: https://twitter.com/i/status/1541885679369691143


Congratulations to Finland, Sweden, and Turkey on signing a trilateral memorandum – a crucial step towards a NATO invite to Finland and Sweden, which will strengthen our Alliance and bolster our collective security – and a great way to begin the Summit.




Together, the G7 is demonstrating the strong global leadership it will take to maximize the costs to Putin and his enablers and address the impact of his war on the global economy.




I want to be clear – the G7's announcement of a new global infrastructure partnership isn't aid or charity. It’s an investment that will deliver returns for everyone – including the American people – and boost all of our economies.

There's no substitute for face-to-face diplomacy.

Sitting down with one another, revitalizing alliances and partnerships, and confronting head-on the challenges that will define the coming decades.




The Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment will mobilize strategic investments in areas vital to sustainable development and our shared global security:

- Health and health security
- Digital connectivity
- Gender equality and equity
- Climate and energy security

Today, the nations of the G7 launched the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment.

Collectively, we aim to mobilize nearly $600 billion from the G7 by 2027 to invest in critical infrastructure that improves lives and delivers real gains for all of our people.

This morning I met with @Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz to discuss our common objective of supporting Ukraine in the defense of its democracy against Russian aggression and a range of shared priorities the G7 will advance together.




Tune in as I deliver remarks with other G7 Leaders to formally launch our Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment – an effort that is critical to our economic and national security.

Watch: https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1YqKDqpZOjVGV


We’re wheels down in Germany for the G7.

I look forward to conversations around our nations’ shared values and priorities: climate, development infrastructure, global health security, and shaping the rules of the road for the economy and technology for decades to come.



https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1540874524413071361