politics

Gray slams “foolish” SCOTUS decision to reign in federal climate bureaucracy

by Guy Page

If she’s elected to Congress in November, don’t expect Lt. Gov. Molly Gray to fight against an aggressive federal bureaucracy, at least regarding climate change. In a recent campaign statement she called the SCOTUS decision rebuking the climate change policy-making role of the Environmental Protection Agency as a “foolish” action by a “radical court.”

In West Virginia vs. EPA, SCOTUS ruled that the federal government shall not create environmental policy – specifically the Obama-era Clean Power Plan intended to close coal-burning power plants and transition to renewable power generation, notably wind and solar. On June 30 Gray said:

“This reckless Supreme Court has issued another disastrous ruling – this time, handing a victory to fossil fuel companies. This foolish decision represents the latest step in a decades-long conservative effort to dismantle regulatory powers in favor of corporate special interests. The Americans most greatly harmed by this ruling will be the ones who can least afford it.

“Congress must overcome its climate dysfunction and act now to clarify the EPA’s role in regulating carbon emissions. This issue cannot be left up to judicial interpretation. As this brazen court has demonstrated repeatedly, the basic rights and interests of Americans – especially the most vulnerable – are under attack.

“In my own lifetime, I’ve seen profound changes to Vermont’s climate. Our ski seasons are shorter, and family farms, like the one I grew up on, must navigate increasingly unpredictable growing seasons.

“I’ll be a forceful, next-generation climate advocate for Vermont in Washington. I earned my law degree from Vermont Law School where I served as an editor on the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law and led the Journal’s Symposium on Climate Change and National Security. I’ve also served as a federal law clerk and Assistant Attorney General; I understand the role of our courts and Congress in setting federal climate and energy standards. I’m ready to put my legal training to work to counteract this radical court.”

Categories: politics

13 replies »

  1. Anyone seeking higher office with law credentials who refers to this Court as “foolish, reckless, brazen and radical” is acting on their political instincts (and their thesaurus) and not on legal principles. Molly has an unexpected pissing contest on her hands with Becca Balint and we will have to see which one has the better thesaurus for their comments on recent SCOTUS decisions.
    Ok, Becca, your turn. If you go by the yard sign count, Becca is ahead by my observation. Remember that in the last election, Molly came out of nowhere and pushed her shopping cart in front of the democrat political checkout line while politely explaining that she just wanted to grab a pack of gum. This did not go over well with many democrats whose favorite candidates have been patiently standing in that line for years. Readers of this forum have a decision to make about whether to vote in the democrat primary and which of these clowns to put in the race for November. Any suggestions about which one will be less harmful to freedom-minded, conservative Vermonters?

    • I would also like to see suggestions…….
      and that oh holy “special corporate interest”……..like she isnt tied hook line and sinker to hers………

  2. Gray……Consider going back to farming. You are a radicalized, largely ignorant, biased youngin’. However, I’m guessing from your background, you can grow prize tomatoes.

  3. so when the court doesn’t align with your over the top climate policies, you blame them as radical.
    you have no right to run for congress when you cant even finish your lieutenant governors position.
    just awful. why are politicians allowed to devote their time on campaign trail while working for the people of Vermont. look at Bernie who goes to Michigan to promote unions, stay in Vermont and do the peoples work

  4. You would hope that these liberal politicians would understand Vermont law better than they do……That regardless of the Roe decision, children without parents’ consent have been able to get abortions before the Roe decision in 1973. Also, it was wrong for the supreme to make that decision! in the first place and to put down our rule of law in this country is just foolishness. It is not perfect, but we would be a lot more like a third world nation without it!

    • The folly of Molly Gray! The SCOTUS has every right and obligation to review and update, modify, or nullify and rulings from the past that were wrong or did not serve in the best interests of we the people in all states. They believe abortion is a state issue and not a federal issue. The majority of people in each state will now decide and change as they see fit.

  5. If she is such a legal scholar then she should be smart enough to know the supreme court determines constitutionality. But of course dems care little about the constitution.

    • They don’t care about the rule of law either. Yet they deem themselves “lawmakers”…go figure.

  6. One more reason NOT to elect gray or for that matter welch as they are simply talking heads for the radical left agenda of the new dem party and biden supporters.

Leave a Reply