Huh? The Congress that created the EPA granted that authority, which is why the EPA has had the court's full support for decades. It took an extremely partisan SCOTUS to invent an excuse to say the opposite.
Call them partisan all you'd like, SCOTUS has the authority to make the determination of whether or not the EPA had such authority.
Meaning, you can claim they are bias, but the EPA still doesn't have said authority.
Nothing you, I or any pundit says will change that. At least until congress grants it said authority. Which as SCOTUS pointed out, congress tried to do, but congress didn't pass the legislation. Now.. why would congress try to pass legislation if the EPA already had said authority?
Or until the Court is packed, or until someone shoots up members of the Court, or whatever.
You're arguing for simply the ability to execute the will to power being the determinant of whether something is right or not. Which is entirely your prerogative, but you should be aware of what you're signing up for.
> It said congress didn't authorize this, ask them.
They did. The House and Senate passed different language, and it never got reconciled.
"The first related to an oversight during the reconciliation of the Clean Air Act amendment in 1990 that resulted in the House and Senate versions of § 7411(d) to never be reconciled, and both versions were codified into the signed law. The House version had stated that because other parts of the Clean Air Act had covered regulation of carbon dioxide, the EPA could not use § 7411(d) to cover carbon dioxide emissions from existing plants, while the Senate version allowed for § 7411(d) to overlap carbon dioxide emissions coverage." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA
Due to a fuckup, SCOTUS got to pick the side they preferred.
