things that might divide us. neil: there is concern as well that nancy pelosi is ruling the roost for democrats on this. doesn t want any money for a wall. still insists it s immoral. she has slightly finessed it to say you might call it a wall for reinforcing something that is there, fencing and the like. that might be her version of bending a little bit. where do you think the middle ground will be on this? well, i think speaker pelosi needs to bend more. we really do need to see physical barrier as part of an overall plan for our southern border. of course we need technology, we need additional agents as well. let s rely on the experts. that would be the folks at cbp. they know that area best, they know what we need. speaker pelosi, let s come to the table, work through this and get this done so we don t have to consider any other
rather than adopting the interpretation that produced absurdity and then going around the rules. it weighs heavy in deferring to federal agencies when language is ambiguous. elena kagan avlged why this isn t a classic case for deference to the agency, that the agency gets to choose how to make the thing work as best it can when a chain circumstance makes it work not entirely the way congress had foretold. epa chose to try to implement the broad protective goals of the statute by bending a little bit on the implementation side. i think that s a choice that agencies have to be able to make. scores of businesses, states led by texas, and several gop lawmakers are characterizing what happened as an unprecedented power grab and calling on the justices to restore what they argue is the rightful balance between the branches. from a constitutional perspective, this is a troubling practice that needs to be
no matter how any american feels about global warming or man made global warming, every american should be very concerned when an executive agency exceeds their authority. and that s really what this case is about. it s about an administrative agency deciding there is a problem and addressing it without any bounds. the e.p.a. chose to try to implement broad protective statute by bending a little bit on the implementation side. i think that s a choice that the agencies have to be able to make. the supreme court hearing arguments, basically six cases in one, all dealing with regulatory powers of the administration. this one dealt with the e.p.a. and whether it could literally rewrite federal statute. so it would meet the e.p.a. s regulatory aims. rewriting what congress did. just a quick glimpse asking the slither general.