DL Open Thread: Friday, July 1, 2022

Democrats Vote Against Renters’ Protection.  Somehow, SS1/SB101 got to the floor. And lost.  Here are those D’s who voted no:

Nnamdi Chukwuocha, Stephanie Bolden, Sean Matthews, Peter Schwartzkopf, Franklin Cooke, Ed Osienski, William Carson, William Bush, and Andria Bennett:

None of the dissenters spoke on their reason for voting no, with Jeff Spiegelman (R) voicing frustration that suspension of House rules allowed the bill to even get to the floor in the overtime of the final session.

Bennett, finally, is gone. The rest of them should be.  I mean, Franklin Cooke? Why?  Sean Matthews? Why? Nnamdi? Why? Ed Osienski? Why?  Stephanie Bolden? We know why.  We also know that at least one of those no votes was to give Buccini/Pollin underling Deb Heffernan cover to vote yes. More on her, lots more on her, coming soon.

As In Now. Machinations At Port Of Wilmington Stink To High Heaven.  Al posted this story yesterday, but it needs to be read by everybody.  Classic Delaware Way story. Skulduggery abounds, nobody’s talking. The gist is that millions were dumped into the Bond Bill to address issues at what is supposed to be the ‘self-sufficient’ Port.  As to nobody’s talking?:

Four years ago, Delaware Gov. John Carney declared that his administration’s deal to privatize the Port of Wilmington would allow the state to “get out of the business of subsidizing the port.”

The resulting 50-year lease of the facility, which the state had negotiated with the Emirati logistics giant Gulftainer, also promised to bring to Delaware new union jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in private investments.

Today, the state again is pouring millions of public dollars into the now-financially ailing port, just as Delaware lawmakers are on the verge of allowing the lucrative terms of its once celebrated lease deal to be amended – or even scrapped.

Among them are requirements that “there shall be no continuing financial commitment” from Delaware; that the port shall never be used as a liquefied natural gas terminal; and that GT USA invest $585 million into Port of Wilmington infrastructure, mostly for construction of the massive Edgemoor container terminal at the site of a former DuPont chemical plant along the Delaware River north of Wilmington.

It is unclear which sections of the lease could be targeted for change in newly proposed legislation. The primary sponsor, Rep. Debra Heffernan-D, Bellefonte, declined to comment. Also not answering questions were officials from the governor’s office.

In an email Wednesday, Secretary of State Jeffrey Bullock said the legislation “is needed as we move forward with building Edgemoor.”

He did not explain how the current version of the concession agreement impedes Edgemoor construction, nor did he respond to a follow-up email asking for the specific changes that would be made to the contract.

That’s about as much fair use as I can justify.  The article is excellent.  If you have a subscription, read it.  One particularly noxious element of the Delaware Way is the arrogant refusal of its self-styled grown-ups to provide even a smidgen of information to the public that is paying for its secret operations.  Jeff Bullock is, in this case, Arrogance Personified.  Yes, a Carperite through and through.

As to Deb Heffernan, the dredging, should it take place, could seriously impact the health of the Edgemoor residents she supposedly serves.  But she’s not talking. She, too, is Arrogance Personified.  More, much more, on her soon.

Congress Can, And Should, Reign In Supreme Court.  Excellent column from Jamelle Bouie:

The U.S. Constitution contains several idle provisions: words, phrases and clauses that have little to no bearing on our constitutional order as it currently exists.

Let’s start here: Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” in all cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” That part is obviously in effect, although most cases between states occur in the lower federal courts established by Congress. The Constitution then states that in all other cases, “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This, too, is in full effect.

But then the Constitution tells us that the court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to “such Exceptions” and “under such Regulations” as “the Congress shall make.”

This is where it gets interesting. The court’s appellate jurisdiction accounts for virtually everything it touches. And the Constitution says that Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction. And as I recently mentioned, it can even tell the court that it needs a supermajority of justices to declare a federal law or previous decision unconstitutional.

Well worth reading.  You’ll learn a lot, and have yet more ammo to go after our namby-pamby incumbents.

Coal Isn’t Coming Back.  A little good news, despite yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling.  Of course, the ruling means that it’s not going away as quickly as it should:

But outside the courtroom, reviving the fossil fuel business isn’t going to be simple.

Nationwide, U.S. coal output tumbled 35 percent from 897 million short tons in 2015 to 578 million short tons in 2021, according to the Energy Information Administration. The Sierra Club’s anti-coal campaign claims 357 coal-fired power plants have closed down, with 173 remaining. And the unused Clean Power Plan, which was the center of Thursday’s case, was supposed to shrink coal’s share of U.S. generation to 27 percent by 2030; instead it fell to 21.8 percent by last year, according to the Environmental Integrity Project.

Richard Lazarus, a Harvard University environmental law professor, acknowledged that many companies would not alter plans — for now. “Yes, coal is going to lose in the marketplace,” he said in an email. “The utilities will not build new coal-fired power plants. That is irreversible, and why, even absent the Clean Power Plan, the U.S. met its regulatory objectives eleven years early.”

But, he warned, “the question is no longer whether the way we produce energy will be fundamentally transformed, but how quickly that will happen. And, for the climate issue now, the pace of change may well be the ballgame.”

A Good Supreme Court Decision?:

In one of the biggest immigration cases before the Supreme Court, and the last case to be decided on this term, the justices determined the Biden administration acted lawfully in terminating a Trump-era policy known as “Remain in Mexico” that pushes asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases go through US immigration courts. In the case of Biden v. Texas, the justices ruled in a 5-4 vote—with Chief Justice Roberts writing the opinion and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the majority—that the Department of Homeland Security can wind down the program, formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols, which has left 70,000 non-Mexican migrants stranded in along the southern border, many living in dangerous camps.

Check out this dissent from Amy Coney Barrett:

“I agree with the Court’s analysis of the merits—but not with its decision to reach them.”

Ho-kay.

What do you want to talk about?