This is CBS, I'm the world, I'm John Batsworth, Professor Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution.

It teaches law at NYU in the University of Chicago.

He is writing and defining ideas about a case set is before the Supreme Court, the oral

arguments are at hand, but right now, no decision.

Despite the fact that the case has been lingering for 15 years as a question of the meaning

of the word adjacent, the meaning of the word wetlands, the meaning of the word navagot,

applicable.

I come to the professor's analysis, however, that this socket case must stand next to

another case that it was of 2022, West Virginia versus EPA, what he calls the major questions

doctrine, which I take it as again as an amateur, Richard means that you need congressional,

clear congressional authorization, not a leap of faith about what Congress meant.

Well, their masses of overextension and essentially what the West Virginia case said for

the Supreme Court is that we have a statue which allows you to figure out what the best

systems of emission reduction mean and everybody understood this to the time that you will

provide people to put filters on machines before they send stuff out into the air.

And then what happens is the EPA says, well, this gives you the power to change the mix

of energy supplies in the United States, to downplay what is being done with fossil

fuels and to increase the amount of wind and solar energy that's involved.

That's not only a leap of faith, that's a complete transformation of the system based

on a tiny little provision in the statute, which has a very sensible alternative meaning.

Now the decision that you saw in Calaway and in the regulation, well, those are the decisions

that took place 30, 40 years ago and so forth, but that's exactly what they're doing.

...