>>22095669
Correct.
Jan 14th 2024
·
·
Q Research
Notable :…
Why did Q mention SIDLEY AUSTIN…??? It's about NET ZERO… Seems important in the grand scheme of Climate Change Agenda.
Is the End Really Nigh?
An Assessment of Oral Argument in the Chevron Deference Cases, and Projections of Possible Impacts Across the Regulatory Space
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two cases putting at issue the continued viability of the Chevron doctrine. Join Sidley's Regulatory Litigation group and leading appellate and regulatory practitioners for a discussion of the Chevron cases. Sidley lawyers will discuss the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, where the justices may be heading, how possible outcomes may impact various federal agencies and regulatory disciplines, and identifying the key doctrines, precedents, and practices in each space that rely on Chevron.
PANELISTS
4:00 p.m. ET | What we heard and where the Court is likely going.
David R. Carpenter, Moderator
Kwaku A. Akowuah
Tacy F. Flint
4:30 p.m. ET | Impact of possible outcomes on federal agencies.
Gordon D. Todd, Moderator
https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/events/2024/01/is-the-end-really-nigh
What is "Chevron deference" …???
Looks like it's all about what the manufacturing industry regulations consider to be a SAUCE of pollution, specifically air pollution. So, this goes to the core of the CO2 argument.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test for when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute.[1] The decision articulated a doctrine now known as "Chevron deference".[2] Chevron deference consists of a two-part test that is deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."
The decision involved a legal challenge to a change in the U.S. government's interpretation of the word "source" in the Clean Air Act of 1963. The Act did not precisely define what constituted a "source" of air pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initially defined "source" to cover essentially any significant change or addition to a plant or factory. In 1981, the EPA changed its definition to be mean only an entire plant or factory. This allowed companies to build new projects without going through the EPA's lengthy new review process if they simultaneously modified other parts of their plant to reduce emissions so that the overall change in the plant's emissions was zero. Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmentalist advocacy group, successfully challenged the legality of the EPA's new definition.[3]
Chevron is one of the most important decisions in U.S. administrative law. It has been cited in thousands of cases since its issuance in 1984.[4]
Thirty-nine years later, in May 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to reevaluate Chevron. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451. A decision is expected in the first half of 2024.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.
The case will be coming up before the Supreme Court mid 2024. Look out for this one, I suspect if Q called it out, it's because it's going to be a lose for Deep State/WEF pundits and a big win for western manufacturing. We will see, but this looks BIGLY…