representative body. essentially, they are saying epa is gone too far in the way it interpreted how it can crackdown on these carbon dioxide emissions. congress should have been more clear in delegating the exact power to the epa or that congress itself should be doing it. it is i brush back to the epa power and reach of administrative agency. it seems tailored to the epa itself. we will keep reading and look at the dissent which is authored by justice kagan. it will get to that as soon as we dig into that. dana: thanks. i want to bring in larry kudlow. this is a decision that does have far-reaching implications not just for government bond for businesses. for businesses and for consumers. and let s get your take on what this decision means. 6-3 ruling against the biden administration. this is a massive, massive decision. it essentially repeals the chevron decision back in the middle 90s which simply said,
acutely by the federal government. that is not much more important decision in terms of its application going forward in my view. it reinforces this idea that major questions need to be resolved by congress. and by implication, that means that federal agencies should not take these questions out of our legislative process out of our political process. it does not take down what is called the chevron doctrine which was this doctrine that gives great deference to agencies. this court has made it clear that it does not have that level of blind faith or is willing to afford that discretion to federal agencies. the epa case will have lasting impact in my view. dana: all right. gillian: jonathan, standby. i want to bring in the national border patrol council
today is because president obama got frustrated during his term that the environmental regulation greenhouse gas emissions reduction law that he wanted to pass couldn t actually get the votes he needed to pass. they said, the epa can go ahead and do it on their own. the fact that now, he could not just be about epa. it could be much broader point the democrats and the pretty interesting position here, chilean, as we wait to find out what this decision is. we know it is the epa decision. gillian: that gets to a question i have. i m sure a lot of other americans following this case after maybe jonathan can shed some light. on paper, this case has a pretty narrow focus, write, sound like how much the epa can really entice or force coal power plants to carbon emissions. how do we end up with an interpretation from the supreme court that would potentially affect every federal department and agency in every
dana: last spring in fox business house larry kudlow again. you ve had time to think about the epa decision that just came down. as he said it was a massive decision, very consequential. on the remain in mexico, i think viewers would be interested in your take on just how much pressure the economy is taking as the southern border issue is not dealt with by the federal government. thank you, dana. just one quick one on the epa. this ruling jonathan turley is correct. the ruling does not overturn the prior chevron decision back in 1994. but it substantially reduces the regulatory running room or elbow room that these so-called independent agencies have. and what is in this document apparently, if there is a major impact on the economy, that is
about 15-20 minutes. the press conference as well. you know nato extremely well. the president i would say probably had a pretty successful meeting when it comes to nato and nato expansion. there is still a question remains which is how long can the support for ukraine be sustained? are they going to get what they need in order to beat back the russians? or are we on a tipping point and not giving them enough of what they need? over to you, sir, what did you hear? first off, i think that you are absolutely right that some of the outcomes of the summit are very good and even better than expected. getting the decision for sweden and finland to be admitted to nato is very important. these are very capable countries and enhance security of northern europe where those countries are insecurity of the baltic states. increasing the high readiness forces the 300,000 and maintain a commitment of several