The dismantling of protections will continue apace because the Supreme Republican Court will now protect Kavanaugh since he’s one of the majority, big business, and Republican policies.

... and Kagan wanted to take up the case, their four votes in favor of certiorari would have been sufficient. So there’s that to take into account. You don’t need a majority to grant cert.

Trump's packed SCOTUS will destroy this country.

Roe v Wade coming right up...

I believe Roberts, if not others too, are not going to reverse it.
Just a feeling, no proof.

You know, sometimes you just get a gut feeling about something or someone.
I mean, it'd be nice if I WAS right!

He's a natural pessimist. Because if things turn out better, he'll be pleasantly surprised, but if they don't, he won't be disappointed.

The problem in this case is that the brakes have now been taken completely off of the GOP government. There is literally no end to the ways they will screw us over, and they WILL explore every opportunity. We are, as Blue Öyster Cult once said, on the hot rails to hell.

Basically the only thing we can do now is vote, snd get everyone you know who is sick of this shit to vote. We all need to do that.

Thomas is 100% certain to overturn Roe. After him, I put Scalito at about 99% to overturn. After that, it gets very shaky. I'd give Gorsuck and Kav at about an 80% chance each, and Roberts about 70%. That's still high, but close enough where there's no guarantee.

How do you feel about their percentages?

The Right was 100% certain it would be tossed and Roberts went the other way; obviously not caring WHAT the Right wanted. And I think that precedent may, MAY have an impact of a couple of them as well.
I'm more on the fence about Gorsuch being at 80% too. And I guess we'll see what kind of opinions Kaveneaugh takes part in. Plus, the case to overturn Roe has to actually GET to the court.
It'd be hilarious if they refused to even hear an overturn case.
Oh, the screams of "traitor!' we would hear......

They were very worried that Kennedy would not side with the conservatives. However, you are right that they were 100% convinced that Roberts would vote their way. The day of the decision, I talked to a local right-wing elected politician that I seen at a restaurant. I asked him his thoughts, and he said how "he had thought Kennedy might vote the wrong way, but he never would have dreamed Roberts would."

Wouldn't it be funny if the SC reaffirms Roe by a vote of 7-2, with only Thomas and Alito dissenting? Unlikely, but possible.

the court can go fuck itself

Not that it matters, but it does. It doesn't matter because even if he recused himself it would be 4-4 and his decision would stand (tie goes to the last court ruling).

But it matters because if he wasn't willing to recuse himself on a ruling he himself made, he never would.

Sotomayer recused herself in any case she argued during her time in the obama admin. How can arguing a case be different from deciding one?

You have a conflict of interest in that you have a vested interest in the outcome.

I'm not a lawyer, that just makes sense to me.

In being a litigant/lawyer for litigant (as in Sotomayer's situation) and being a previous judge -- a litigant has an interest in one side winning.

Anyway, I'm looking at the rules now, and it's not one of them.

It actually makes sense to me, in that K is no more or less biased than he was before; we just happen to know his reasoning and his conclusion.

Anyway, it would be difficult for the Court to rule any other way; the Repugs in Congress wrote the law to intentionally strip the EPA of this power. Judges don't write this crap law. They read it. If they are given crap statutes to read, they give crap results.

But it's not the law.

The rule is Code of Conduct for US Judges, and the applicable one here is 3(C).

It speaks to being a lawyer for a party, family member, owner, etc., but nothing about adjudicating past decisions.

Scotus justices are above the Code of Conduct. There is nothing to compel their recusal. Any recusal is entirely voluntary.

The request for writ was filed back in June and I think their consideration vote was in the last conference (four or five days ago).

Just as importantly, by custom it only takes four votes to issue a writ of certiorari... not five, so at least one of the four liberal justices agreed with the ruling.

is that the 4 libs decided there was no point hearing it since they knew they didn't have the votes to alter it on appeal. They do try to keep from hearing cases they won't make any changes to.

What I didn't realize was the timing of the decision. The reports made it sound like it was just handed down.

on something you'd like to revisit later.

So these kind of people assume that if they are immune from rape charges that they will also be immune from pollution in the air and water? I'm pretty sure these things will affect the heartless and the brainless just the same as the rest of the living creatures.

title of the case?

I have looked at several news reports and none of them appear to name the case.

Heck they should be linking to the actual decision online.

(fixed link)
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/15-1328/15-1328-2017-08-08.pdf?ts=1502204457

No. 15-1328

MEXICHEM FLUOR,INC., PETITIONER
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC,LLC,ET AL., INTERVENORS

No. 15-1328

MEXICHEM FLUOR,INC., PETITIONER
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC,LLC,ET AL., INTERVENORS

DU had a problem with a "$" in the URL. Alternate link:
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/15-1328/15-1328-2017-08-08.pdf?ts=1502204457

In this case - Congress gave the EPA the power to regulate "ozone-depleting" chemicals.

All parties in this case agreed that the chemicals in question are not ozone-depleting.

IOW - Blame Congress... not the court.

The UN issued a dire warning about global warming and the urgent need for the regulation just struck down. Go figure. It sucks having this administration doing things like this in our name. It really sucks.

And assault boy refuses to allow them to do their jobs...

🖤

It's the chlorine containing refrigerants that are ozone depleting. HFC's are a greenhouse gas however. Their roles are well known. Industry has been working on replacements for years and that momentum is unlikely to change.

Not all corporations are run by republicans out to destroy the planet for short term profits.

Regular chlorine in bleach breaks up and rains out in the troposphere long before it can reach the ozone layer.

. . . it takes the votes of four Justices for a petition for certiorari to be granted. The results of Court conferences, where the Justices discuss and then decide whether to take up a case, are not reported. So, unlike merits opinions, there is no reported "voting breakdown." All that can be known here is that fewer than four Justices wanted to take up this case. Maybe three did. Maybe none did.

Occasionally, one or more Justices will write a dissent from a denial of certiorari, and then one can have some sense of where the Court came out with respect to a particular petition, but that's relatively rare.