WVU Law Discussion – Description
The ruling made by the Supreme Court in West Virginia vs EPA appears to confirm what McDonald anticipated in “The Nondelegation Cliffhanger,” i.e. the resurrection of the nondelegation doctrine. Or does it? Based on the analysis of the ruling featured in Kilgore’s “Supreme Court Sabotages EPA Fight Against Climate Change,” evaluate whether or not McDonald’s expectations have come to pass. (A strong reply will display a keen sense of exactly what McDonald expected to happen, i.e. the Supreme Court’s destination and the specific path it would take to get there.)
Also, briefly examine one (not both) of the following. 1) In “Power Failure,” Cockburn argues that despite its avowed opposition to the so-called administrative state, the Republican right has made savvy use of the administrative state — or, at least, federal bureaucracies partly or wholly independent of Congressional guidance — to advance its agenda. Supply a couple of examples. 2) In “Even in the Worst-Case Scenario with West Virginia v EPA, We Still Have Pathways to Climate Action,” the author (affiliated with the Drilled podcast) contends that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling does not spell the end of using the law to effectuate a just transition to a post-fossil fuel society. How do their suggested tactics and strategies compare to those enunciated by McDonald, when he writes of environmental movement advocates flipping the nondelegation doctrine on behalf of their own causes?
The post WVU Law Discussion first appeared on .
