The Endangerment Finding: Down, But Not Out

Writing in the Washington Examiner, Steve Milloy of Junk Science explains that the recent rescission of the EPA's Endangerment Finding is far from Job Done to save the American fossil fuel industry:

West Virginia v. EPA ... didn't explicitly overturn Massachusetts v. EPA because the red-state litigants never specifically raised the issue, and the Supreme Court chose to rule as narrowly as possible.

So, here's the problem: While the Trump EPA is now saying that the Obama endangerment finding is illegal under the holding in West Virginia v. EPA (i.e., no congressional authorization), Massachusetts v. EPA remains on the books as good law.

Simply rescinding the Obama decision, as the Trump EPA just did, is technically just a change in policy, not a change in the operative law. In the event that Democrats win the White House in 2028, you can bet they will reinstate the endangerment finding as soon as possible in 2029, citing Massachusetts v. EPA in doing so. [links omitted, bold added]

Here we go again.

Such are the hazards of making the "biggest deregulatory move in history" by fiat, executive or administrative.

Milloy explains what Trump needs to do to cement this good part of his legacy, and that's to have the Justice Department challenge Massachusetts v. EPA and the EPA rescind a separate endangerment finding that applies to stationary sources of greenhouse emissions.

-- CAV

P.S. For the various Trump people who come by from time to time to complain to me when I criticize Trump/don't criticize the Democrats (whom he too frequently imitates) enough, this is two days in a row I have concurred with something he has done, and wanted that thing to be as effective as possible.

We're Finally Fighting Back

Will it be enough?

Over the weekend, the United States and Israel launched widespread, coordinated attacks against Iran. The apparent aims are of neutering that country's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capabilities, and toppling its theocratic regime, which has been at war with both countries and the West in general ever since 1979.

Yaron Brook's initial reaction. Commentary starts about 1:50.

It's about time, and I have heard that the top echelon of its leadership, including "Supreme Leader" Ali Khamanei, died during an incredibly short time span.

Good riddance.

The case for attacking Iran -- something that should have been done decades ago -- is clear-cut. Less so is whether the sitting President -- a thoroughly corrupt and amoral whim-worshiper -- will carry through this endeavor to the point that Iran no longer poses a threat to the West.

Worse, as clear as it is that we should obliterate this regime, it is equally clear that Trump does not have the authority to order military operations of this magnitude without Congressional approval. I am concerned that Congress will either fail to offer its belated authorization or even attempt to end our participation in this war before it has been prosecuted to the extent it should be.

I can only hope our militaries do enough damage before things change enough politically that the regime is effectively done, and the Iranian people are able to establish the freer, rights-respecting government they seem to want. By its nature, such a government would be at minimum cease being a threat, and would likely be friendly to our countries and its neighbors. At worse, almost any other government would at least be less of a threat.

Having noted my own reaction to this generally welcome turn of events, I'll end with a short listing of items I gleaned over the weekend, in no particular order:

• A Rundown on the War as of 2-28 -- roles of U.S. and Israeli forces, objectives, Iranian retaliation notes, Iranian casualties not yet known
• Garry Kasparov -- the good of waging this war and the bad of who's in charge in a nutshell
• Agustina Vergara Cid -- expresses qualified agreement with Ilya Somin's analysis of the constitutionality of the war and its feasibility as a means of achieving regime change
• Adam Mossoff -- counters Ilya Somin's assessment of the wisdom and morality of the attacks

Although I have not yet had the opportunity to listen to any of Yaron Brook's so far daily updates on the war, I am looking forward to them and unreservedly recommend them, based on his past commentary in general and on the Hamas war in particular. Brook's initial reaction is embedded above.

-- CAV

Four Neat Things

A Friday Hodgepodge

1. The site hackernews.love, based on comments from the knowledgeable readers at Hacker News, showcases the successful innovations that received pelters there, way back when.

For each success, there are several quotes, such as "It does not seem very 'viral' or income-generating." -- Brandon M, followed by the market's contrary verdict, e.g., "Dropbox IPO'd in 2018 at a $12B valuation. Drew Houston later thanked BrandonM by name when Dropbox went public."

2. By coincidence, I learned about two more ways to employ the humble bathroom mirror as a reminder, one digital and one analog.

Looking for a better way to display my calendar, I learned that some people employ smart mirrors for the task.

On the other end of the technology spectrum -- if you discount the technology behind erasable markers -- Heloise recommends using those.

I just use post-it notes myself, but I love the idea that there are people out there using smart mirrors!

3. Allison Green's recent post on workplace romance includes a few that worked out very well. She calls my favorite of the lot "the sandwich maneuver."

4. Years ago, the Internet Djinni granted my wish -- in the form of a site called junkyarddog.com -- for a cheap Mercedes part after my wife had a fender-bender in the car she was borrowing from her Dad.

I thought they'd disappeared, but in the process of writing this post, I learned otherwise.

I guess now, rather than mere relief at discovering a "replacement," I get to appreciate the fact that there are at least two good ways to find car parts on the internet

Based on a search for a part I recently had to replace in my car, they are different-enough from each other that they might be good for different needs.

See my previous post for how I used Junkyard Dog. Car-Part.com provides a list of dealers and prices, instead, and includes new parts.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected URL to link in Item 4.

Another 'Eight Glasses of Water a Day'

By coincidence, two items I ran across this morning reminded me of unsolicited medical advice, and I hadn't even gotten to Trump's latest lunatic cabinet nominee.

Although I walk for an hour most days of the week, I had no idea that I was "supposed" to be taking 10,000 steps a day. (Maybe hectoring everyone over this is part of why Bobby K pushes "wearables.")

I'd heard the number before, but not being prone to health fads, I never bothered to look into it, and probably would have blown off anyone who suggested it.

Nevertheless, it's a thing, and it's been debunked:

Walking seems an unlikely exercise to generate debate. But as you point out, that's exactly what happened with the near-mythic 10,000 steps. This number was interpreted as the ideal amount of walking per day. That number actually comes from a Japanese advertising campaign that, in 1965, promoted a brand of pedometer. More recent studies have challenged the 10,000 steps, coming in both lower and higher. Now, new research suggests it's not total steps that matter most to heart health. It's the length of time spent walking at a steady pace that is most important. [bold added]

The two physicians addressing this claim explain more of the research support and reasoning behind that statement at the above link.

Before you say Good, now I won't have to hear that one any more, don't forget that eight glasses of water a day! has been debunked for quite some time, with periodic reminders bubbling up in the press now and again ... and again and again.

So, yes, you will hear get to hear that again.

For anyone who has trouble shutting down the kinds of nostrums MAHA wants you to hear about nonstop, the other, related piece I bumped into offers a graceful way to brush off unsolicited medical advice from the well-meaning. For more persistent types, the grey rock method might come in handy, but I hope it doesn't come to that for you.

-- CAV

Somin on Trump's New, Also Illegal Tariffs

Writing in the Boston Globe, Ilya Somin, who helped bring down Trump's IEEPA tariffs, explains why Trump's latest power grab would "undermine the constitutional system almost as much as the earlier tariffs did."

It's a relatively short piece, but I'll pass along two highlights.

First, the new Section 122 tariffs are illegal and Trump knows they are:

Shortly after the court's decision, Trump issued a proclamation invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose 10 percent global tariffs. The next day, he increased the rate to 15 percent -- though as of Tuesday, the administration implemented only 10 percent tariffs. Section 122 only permits tariffs for up to 150 days in response to "fundamental international payments problems" that cause "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits" or "an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar," or are to cooperate with other countries in addressing an "international balance-of-payments disequilibrium."

As conservative legal commentator Andrew McCarthy explained in National Review, none of these legal preconditions to the use of Section 122 exist. Nor is the scheme part of some plan of international cooperation.

...

Trump's proclamation imposing the Section 122 tariffs cites trade deficits as a justification. But as the Trump administration itself argued in the IEEPA case, Section 122 does not apply to trade deficits. In fact, that is one reason why the administration wanted to use IEEPA to impose the tariffs. [links omitted, bold added]

Second -- and my best guess as to why the new tariffs are "almost" as bad as the old -- is that there is a numeric limit of 15% in Section 122.

That said, while 15% is lower than some of Trump's IEEPA tariffs, it isn't really much of a limit, given how loosely Trump is interpreting the law -- on top of blatantly ignoring the fact that the required conditions for using it haven't even been met:

Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurring opinion in the IEEPA case also relied on the nondelegation doctrine, which limits the extent to which Congress can delegate its authority to executive discretion. The limits of delegation are far from clear. But the Supreme Court held last year that a delegation of authority to impose taxes or fees must have a "floor" and a "ceiling" and that the degree of "guidance" required from Congress is greater "when an agency action will 'affect the entire national economy' than when it addresses a narrow, technical issue." The power to impose 15 percent tariffs -- the highest tariffs since the disastrous Smoot-Hawley tariffs that exacerbated the Great Depression -- is unquestionably one that affects the "entire national economy." And Trump's permissive interpretation of the law would let him impose those rates at almost any time. [link omitted, bold added]

As Somin indicates, the new tariffs will likely be challenged soon. It will be interesting to see if and when the courts enjoin them, given the fact that companies already feel the need to sue to recover the money this Administration looted from them last time.

-- CAV

P.S. I hear Trump bloviated/demonized immigrants/tossed red meat to his base last night. The lengthy transcript is here for anyone who is interested. I read a few sections, and it looks to be about what one would expect.

To wit, Trump asked for another participation ribbon after casting himself as the one thing standing between us and doom: I've always wanted the Congressional Medal of Honor, but I was informed I'm not allowed to give it to myself...

This loser -- whom congressional Republicans refuse to corral -- just cannot allow anyone else, even an actual winner, enjoy the limelight for even a few seconds.

Trump's IEEPA Loot Return Scandal

"Let's all please stop calling the $175B+ 'proceeds,' 'revenue,' or the like. It is ill-gotten. Call it what it is: LOOT." -- Me

***

I no longer recall where I heard this, but a factor in the courts not stopping the Trump Administration from collecting IEEPA tariffs while the legal system chugged along was, I believe, a promise on its part to refund the loot should the taxes be ruled unconstitutional.

There are rumblings about this being "difficult" and taking a long time.

This is as ridiculous as calling the loot by any other name, as Joseph Calhoun of Alhambra argues bluntly:

As an aside, let me say that a lot of the commentary I saw on the refund issue Friday was the most idiotic I've seen in a long time. I saw multiple comments to the effect that it would be hard to refund the tariffs since we don't know who actually paid them. Anyone making that argument should automatically forfeit their right to debate anything about trade policy ever again, in perpetuity. Let me be very, very clear about this. The refunds will go to the people or entities who actually wrote the check for the tariffs (or authorized the EFT or sent a wire, whatever). The refund has nothing to do with the incidence of the tax, who bears its ultimate burden. A foreign company that reduces its border price so the cost to its US customers remains the same post tariff is, in a sense, "paying" for the tariff. But the entity that is owed a refund is still the US company that imported the item, sent payment to US Customs and Border Protection for the tariff and collected the goods from customs. There is no other right legal answer. [bold added]

Thank you, Mr. Calhoun.

I'll close by naming the all too predictable scandal to come, with the example I gave after the above quote of the use of the word loot in a sentence:

After SCOTUS found the IEEPA tariffs unconstitutional, Trump dragged his feet on repaying the LOOT back to his victims.

On top of this scandal, those who lost businesses and livelihoods to Trump's mad whims cannot took forward even to that remote possibility, although there will be some Trump will attempt to pay off with loot aquired from others through past taxes and future inflation.

-- CAV

SCOTUS Correctly Dumps IEEPA Tariffs

Friday, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling on the dubious legality of Trump's "emergency" tariffs, which the President claimed the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) empowered him to levy:

A 6-3 Supreme Court majority on Friday struck down President Trump's sweeping emergency tariffs (Learning Resources v. Trump) in a monumental vindication of the Constitution's separation of powers. You might call it the real tariff Liberation Day.

It's hard to overstate the importance of the Court's decision for the law and the economy. Had Mr. Trump prevailed, future Presidents could have used emergency powers to bypass Congress and impose border taxes with little constraint.

As Chief Justice John Roberts explains in the majority opinion, "Recognizing the taxing power's unique importance, and having just fought a revolution motivated in large part by 'taxation without representation,' the Framers gave Congress 'alone ... access to the pockets of the people.'" [link removed]

I agree with Yaron Brook that the ruling, while imperfect, is very good news in that it upholds rule of law in the short term, and with David French that it cannot, alone, save our Republic:

During Trump's second term, I've likened the judiciary to the rear guard of a retreating army. A valiant delaying action can give the army a chance to reinforce, reorganize and strike back. But if the army can't strike back, then rear guards merely delay defeat.

The judiciary isn't perfect, but it is performing its core constitutional function. It is preserving the foundation of America's constitutional structure. But not even the Supreme Court can save Americans from themselves.

If we keep electing men like Trump, they will keep undermining that foundation, until it finally collapses.

One day that may well happen. But on Friday, the Supreme Court said not this day. On this day the presidency is stuffed back into its box. On this day the separation of powers prevails. And on this day the Constitution holds.

It is now our job to make sure that the Supreme Court did not stand in vain.

Those interested in legal analysis would do well to read Ilya Somin's piece about the ruling in The Atlantic, where one of the counsels in one of the three cases briefly explains the reasoning presented by the concurring and dissenting justices.

Yaron Brook discusses the ruling.

This Brook does as well in his commentary, embedded above, spending time delving into Gorsuch's opinion, which was the most devastating to the tariffs, as well as being about as good as one could expect in today's intellectual context.

-- CAV