Toomey tells SEC chief to be 'on notice' that Supreme Court may overrule new climate rule

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee took aim at Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler’s plan to implement a new rule requiring disclosure of climate change risks during a hearing Thursday.

The SEC voted in March to propose a new rule requiring public companies to report risks related to climate change and their own greenhouse gas emissions, in an effort to standardize such disclosures and provide investors with useful information.

Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, the committee’s top Republican, admonished Gensler for failing to provide “real answers” to written questions submitted to the SEC by GOP senators on how the agency developed the proposal. He also predicted that the Supreme Court would toss out the rule if it is ultimately implemented.

“The SEC may not want to answer to Congress on its climate disclosure rule,” Toomey said, “but, ultimately, the SEC will have to answer to the courts, which should make it nervous.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/270f1361-c24c-34a9-8c8d-1fda3c4c8e32/toomey-tells-sec-chief-to-be.html

What climate science qualifications to the righties on the Extreme Court have? Do they think they're going to be raptured up before it occurs?

[canuckledragger]

1. So the right-wing activist judges are going to legislate from the bench again?

[Lovie777]

2. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo . ..

apparently the 6 asshole GQP justices talks with Republican congresscritters concerning their decisions?

I'm pretty sure the Republican party knew about Roe v Wade even before the decision was leaked, although I'm a strong believer they leaked it themselves.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

3. The Extreme Court is a political arm for the radicalized Republican party.

Roe, Roe, Roe your vote
against theocracy!
Republicans revoke your rights
and kill democracy!

Donate to 38 House candidates: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217067267
Stick 'em up for a blue wave: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217078977

[in2herbs]

4. This is exactly why the court should be divided into specialties when it is expanded. Then, only

those judges with education and experience in climate change issues would be assigned such cases. Three judges for each specialty, 15 judges overall. Doctors are specialists, lawyers are specialists, etc., our USSC should be composed of specialists, not science-denying political hacks.

[Zeitghost]

6. There job is not to interpret the science

It is to interpret the law.

The case being discussed (SEC rules on disclosing climate risks) has nothing to do with whether those rules would help combat climate change, but rather whether they fall within the scope of the SEC's rule making powers.

[in2herbs]

7. Any decision rendered by a govt agency is subject to appeal, so when a decision gets

to the USSC -- or any federal court --- the decider of the decision should know what the h**l they're ruling on.

Years ago, one of the USSC judges ruled on Native American's right to peyote -- the justice had everything wrong about peyote, its use, and how to use it.

Is it too much to ask that a judge knows what they're talking about!!!?

[Zeitghost]

8. In some cases, that is true

In this hypothetical case, the decision hinges on the rule making power delegated to the SEC by Congress, not the merits of their rule or its effect on climate change. A judge could know nothing of climate change an still make and informed ruling provide they were familiar with the legislation pertaining to the SEC.

[scarletlib]

5. Ala He Man, they have the power!