Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Eugene

(61,595 posts)
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 10:22 AM Jun 2014

Supreme Court limits greenhouse gas regulations

Source: USA Today

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY 10:18 a.m. EDT June 23, 2014

WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court blocked the Obama administration Monday from requiring permits for some industries that spew greenhouse gases, but the ruling won't prohibit other means of regulating the pollutant that causes global warming.

The court's conservative wing ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency exceeded its authority by changing the emissions threshold for greenhouse gases in the Clean Air Act. That action can only be taken by Congress, the justices said.

The 5-4 ruling, which partially reverses a 2012 federal appeals court decision, represents a moral victory for industry and state government opponents of the federal regulations. They have complained that the rules could cost billions of dollars to implement and threaten thousands of jobs.

But the court said the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions from industries already required to get permits for other forms of emissions.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/23/supreme-court-greenhouse-gas/8567453/

47 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Supreme Court limits greenhouse gas regulations (Original Post) Eugene Jun 2014 OP
conservatism get the red out Jun 2014 #1
True. Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #28
It conserves the wealth of the wealthy FiveGoodMen Jun 2014 #47
"a moral victory for industry" WTF!! CBGLuthier Jun 2014 #2
I was thinking the act same thing. I would call it an amoral victory. Dustlawyer Jun 2014 #10
That's a good name for it. Or an immoral victory. Louisiana1976 Jun 2014 #29
Yeah, I gagged on that oxymoron! freshwest Jun 2014 #32
Link to the actual decision. former9thward Jun 2014 #3
Thanks. Will take time elleng Jun 2014 #20
Is there no end to the corporate thuggery? blackspade Jun 2014 #4
Here is the Opinion, it is a real mess happyslug Jun 2014 #5
Triple split judgment. I am not sure the interpretation of the author is correct. Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #11
After you made your comment, I finished reading the opinion. happyslug Jun 2014 #36
I think you have it right after your edit, it makes sense that the meat of the ruling is that Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #42
meanwhile... PatrynXX Jun 2014 #6
Its way past time to begin the impeachment iemitsu Jun 2014 #7
+100000000000000000000000 SoapBox Jun 2014 #18
This is NOT a constitutional issue, but a statutory issue, did Congress give this Power to the EPA happyslug Jun 2014 #35
I wonder what air they plan to breathe. LoisB Jun 2014 #8
Interesting how headlines can slant opinion one way or the other... OKNancy Jun 2014 #9
There you have it. How many comment based only on the headline without reading the story? 7962 Jun 2014 #13
YES! elleng Jun 2014 #16
Enjoy! And BTW, its cleaner now than 30,40 or more years ago! 7962 Jun 2014 #17
Indeed! elleng Jun 2014 #21
Except greenhouse gases - CO2 levels at 400 ppm - a record in humankind's existence progree Jun 2014 #22
I know its a bit nit-picking, but at least CO2 isnt pollution. 7962 Jun 2014 #31
"at least CO2 isnt pollution" - who says? progree Jun 2014 #34
Sorry, but I'm not giving China & India a pass just so they can "catch up" to western living 7962 Jun 2014 #43
Well, then maybe we should reduce our per-capita CO2 emssions to China & India's levels progree Jun 2014 #44
EXACTLY, OKNancy, elleng Jun 2014 #15
Save billions of $ and thousands of jobs, while killing ALL OF US! Dustlawyer Jun 2014 #12
Yup, "could cost billions of dollars" William Seger Jun 2014 #25
Different headline/same story: Justices, With Limits, Let E.P.A. Curb Power-Plant Gases. elleng Jun 2014 #14
Guys. Read the opinion. BAD headline. The EPA won big. broadcaster75201 Jun 2014 #19
In what alternate reality did the EPA "win big"??? blkmusclmachine Jun 2014 #23
Ummm, the Supreme Court confirmed the EPA has the power to regulate GH gas emissions pediatricmedic Jun 2014 #26
Reading the opinion, I agree with you.... happyslug Jun 2014 #37
Even in the case of Thomas and Alito... mostlyconfused Jun 2014 #45
Please note no one is bringing up any constitutional issues, just what did Congress passed. happyslug Jun 2014 #46
So many fell for the slanted headline, the EPA won nearly everything it wanted pediatricmedic Jun 2014 #24
True, I still can't wrap around moral and polluting industry used in the same sentence. freshwest Jun 2014 #33
Does anyone actually READ the links anymore? Raine1967 Jun 2014 #27
I go straight to the actual Supreme Court Opinion and see what the Court actually wrote. happyslug Jun 2014 #40
I did, and I thank you. eom. Raine1967 Jun 2014 #41
From what I read it looks pretty good. They already answered the question about the NEW EPA rules. dballance Jun 2014 #30
Disturbing .. Money trumps Clean Air. Hmm. Has a SCOTUS judge ever been impeached? YOHABLO Jun 2014 #38
Not since the early 1800s, and he was aquited by the Senate. happyslug Jun 2014 #39

CBGLuthier

(12,723 posts)
2. "a moral victory for industry" WTF!!
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 10:31 AM
Jun 2014

I know what those words mean but together they are meaningless. There has never in the history of this civilization been such a thing as "industry with morality" in fact time and time and time again industry has engaged in practices AS IMMORAL as anything done by man.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
5. Here is the Opinion, it is a real mess
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 10:41 AM
Jun 2014

Last edited Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:24 PM - Edit history (3)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1146_4g18.pdf

BEFORE YOU READ THE OPINION REMEMBER THE CLEAN AIR ACT RESTRICTS WHAT POLLUTERS THE EPA CAN REGULATE. That was the issue in front of the Supreme Court. The question was simply:

Are Green House Gases to be counted to determine if a polluter is under the regulatory power of the EPA?

Small polluters are NOT to be regulated by the EPA under the terms of the Clean Air Act, for example in 1976 when the Act was passed Senate Muskie said the act was NOT intended to regulate people's homes, but just major polluters.

This in this case the issue was did the EPA have the authority to add Green House Gases to the list of gases caused by pollution when it came to determining if the EPA had the authority to regulate a polluter of primarily Green House Gases?

SCALIA, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, Parts I and II of which were for the Court. ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, J., joined that opinion in full; Please note Scalia makes two findings:

1. One that the Clean Air Act did NOT give the EPA the ability to regulate Green House gases in and by themselves, (This was Parts 1, II-1 and II-B-1 of the Clean air act, this was agreed with by Thomas and Alito, but rejected by Ginsberg, Breyer, Somtomayer and Kagan)

2. but the Clean Air Act did give the EPA to regulate Green Houses gases along with other pollinates the EPA was regulating (this was agreed to be Ginsberg, Breyer, Somtomayer and Kagan but rejected by Thomas and Alito).

Thus you had seven justices who said the EPA can regulate Green House Gases as part of the EPA's regulation of most pollution, but two that said the EPA could NOT regulate Green House gases at all.

Three Justices said the EPA could NOT regulate Green House Gases in and by themselves, but could regulate them with other pollutes (That was Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy).
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
36. After you made your comment, I finished reading the opinion.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:18 PM
Jun 2014

I had to read it several times to get who agreed to what and that force me to rewrite what I had written. Sorry about the change but I have to point out that your response was to a less detail paragraph then it is now.

Seven Justices said the EPA can regulate Green House Gases along with other pollution if such pollution is of the amount to be regulated by the EPA (Three of these Justices, Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy then said the Clean Air Act did not give the EPA the power to regulate polluters who are to small to come under the Clean Air Act do to the small amount of other pollution they were releasing into the Atmosphere).

Two Justices (Alito and Thomas) who said the Clean Air Act did not give the EPA the power to regulate ANY Green House Gas.

Four Justices, Ginsberg, Bryer, Somtomyer and Kagan who said the EPA under the Clean Air Act had the power to regulate Green House Gases from any polluter under the Clean Air Act.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
42. I think you have it right after your edit, it makes sense that the meat of the ruling is that
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 11:35 PM
Jun 2014

the EPA can clearly regulate gases created by other substances that create the gas, which amounts to the same thing, by 7 -2. Alito and Thomas really threw themselves on the love pile for pollution without regulation.
Only the majority decision in a split ruling will have the force of law, and the 4-2 split favouring the EPA versus the 2 only against, Alito and Thomas, the same two in the short end of the 7-2 majority, is also good.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
35. This is NOT a constitutional issue, but a statutory issue, did Congress give this Power to the EPA
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:41 PM
Jun 2014

Since the court said NO as to direct controls on CO2, but did say CO2 can be controlled when other pollutants are controlled, Congress can change this by a vote. Reading the decision I get the impression the court wanted to give the EPA the power, but just could not bring itself to do it for the EPA for years said the law did not give it the power regulate CO2 by itself, but can do so as part of the regulations of other pollutants.

This is NOT a constitutional issue that would have to be reversed by a constitutional amendment, this is just a Court ruling on what the law is, and the law can be changed by a Majority vote of the House and Senate and Obama's signature.

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
13. There you have it. How many comment based only on the headline without reading the story?
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 12:19 PM
Jun 2014

Above we see calls for impeaching 5 justices, yet those five agreed with the others on parts of the decision. But it must be ALL or evil has taken over!!

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
17. Enjoy! And BTW, its cleaner now than 30,40 or more years ago!
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 12:25 PM
Jun 2014

Why do we always forget how far we've come?

progree

(10,864 posts)
22. Except greenhouse gases - CO2 levels at 400 ppm - a record in humankind's existence
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 01:11 PM
Jun 2014

(and compared to 270 ppm in pre-industrial times). And I don't think we're doing anything to control methane gas emissions, another potent greenhouse gas, I suspect also at humankind record levels

17. Enjoy! And BTW, its cleaner now than 30,40 or more years ago!
 

7962

(11,841 posts)
31. I know its a bit nit-picking, but at least CO2 isnt pollution.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:10 PM
Jun 2014

And US emissions of CO2 have been dropping year over year. We are now at a level of 20 yrs ago. Until the Chinese and Indians agree to do what we've done, nothing we do will matter anyway.
Maybe we didnt have the worldwide levels we have now since humans have been around, but we did have MUCH higher levels in the past that happened during an ice age. So there's that, too.

Where I live, our landfill methane is captured and supplies power to a potato chip factory!

progree

(10,864 posts)
34. "at least CO2 isnt pollution" - who says?
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 06:27 PM
Jun 2014

Last edited Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:36 AM - Edit history (1)

My understanding is that the EPA classifies it as a pollutant. Certainly EPA administrator Gina McCarthy uses the term "carbon pollution". I certainly do, but then I believe in global warming being mostly caused by humans and mostly caused by greenhouse gasses. Which also causes acidification of oceans and damaging coral reefs and plankton. (Yes, I know a certain level of CO2 is essential for life, but like many things, it's a matter of degree).

[font color = blue]>> And US emissions of CO2 have been dropping year over year. We are now at a level of 20 yrs ago. <<[/font]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/16/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-2012_n_1792167.html

A lot of that is of course thanks to "non-polluting fracking" (which puts a lots of methane in the air and crap in our ground water).

A lot is due to shifting more and more manufacturing overseas so that China gets blamed for the CO2 emissions they create to mine and build the manufactured products that the U.S. consumes.

As for China and India, it’s a bit high-handed of us to blame them for trying to achieve the same living standards as us. They have far less energy consumption and CO2 emissions per-capita, and have contributed far far less CO2, cumulatively, than we have.

[font color = red] Late edit to add 6/23 1129 PM CT:[/font] The U.S. CO2 reduction was not due to making any sacrifices - very little regulation to speak of, no carbon taxes. It all came about from a poor economy and the switch to a cheaper energy source - natural gas through fracking. If China and India follow our lead of not making serious sacrifices, then yes, we all face a ruinous future.

[font color = blue] >> Maybe we didn't have the worldwide levels we have now since humans have been around, but we did have MUCH higher levels in the past that happened during an ice age. So there's that, too. <<[/font]

Humans have been around during at least the last four.

Here's one showing that over the last 450,000 years, it has been at 300 ppm at the most (excluding of course the last 50 years or so)
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
43. Sorry, but I'm not giving China & India a pass just so they can "catch up" to western living
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 06:35 AM
Jun 2014

A lot of things USED to be done that we know now NOT to do. Should we let poorer countries do anything just to improve their standard of living? And a lot of people say the problem IS our standard of living, so why let 3 billion people make things worse?
Believe me, a lot of these countries will never change. Sure we used to have pollution, but youve seen the pics of Chinese cities blanketed in smog.

You say a bad economy is what caused our reductions? The 90s was a boom decade. We've been putting out less since '93, which is also well before fracking produced very much volume. And we have had several clean air and water laws over the past few decades. Thats why not only the air, but the water is much cleaner than in the 50s or earlier. I remember a nearby paper mill having to install some new tech into their smokestacks. After that, you couldnt smell the "rotten eggs" when the wind blew the right way.

I certainly believe we should continue to improve on what we've already done. But I'm not convinced that we are the main cause of any warming going on. Not to mention the stories about fudged data that keep showing up. Here's one from just yesterday:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

I just dont know who has the smarts to say that the temperature right now is exactly where we have to be.

progree

(10,864 posts)
44. Well, then maybe we should reduce our per-capita CO2 emssions to China & India's levels
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:55 AM
Jun 2014

Last edited Tue Jun 24, 2014, 10:19 PM - Edit history (2)

[font color = blue] >> 43. Sorry, but I'm not giving China & India a pass just so they can "catch up" to western living

A lot of things USED to be done that we know now NOT to do. Should we let poorer countries do anything just to improve their standard of living? <<[/font]

Well, have you considered then that maybe, instead of a trivial reduction of a few percent from levels that are still far higher than China & India levels per capita, we should reduce emissions to China's and India's levels per capita? Not to mention that cumulatively, over the past centuries, the U.S. has emitted far more CO2 than both those countries combined? Not just on a per-capita basis but in tons of CO2.

[font color = red]Edited to Add, 6/24 1105a CT:[/font] And again, much U.S. manufacturing has gone overseas in the last decades, to places like China. China is producing substantial levels of CO2 to produce products that are consumed in the U.S. I think it’s primarily the U.S. that should be blamed for CO2 caused by hoggish (relative to non-Western countries) U.S. consumers.

We (all countries) will have to make sacrifices to solve this problem. I'm just saying that since we (the western nations) created most of the problem, any notion of fairness means we should make the biggest sacrifices. By far.

[font color = blue] >> You say a bad economy is what caused our reductions? The 90s was a boom decade. We've been putting out less since '93, which is also well before fracking produced very much volume. <<[/font]

U.S. CO2 emissions rose through the 1990s and early- and mid- 2000s, to peak in 2007, which was also the last year before the financial crash hit full force.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

The title of the below graph is: U.S. Carbon Dioxide Gas Emissions, 1990-2012 (I don't know why it got lopped off)



And fracking is a big factor since 2007, which wasn't much of a factor before 2007.

The U.S.'s CO2 reductions since 2007 were the result of a poor economy and market-place economics (fracking being cheaper than coal), not from any sacrifice on our part.

[font color = blue] >> But I'm not convinced that we are the main cause of any warming going on. <<[/font]

Cumulatively, the U.S. has put out much more CO2 into the atmosphere than China and India combined. Who is "we", by the way? U.S.? The world? It's not humans, its sunspots?

World temperatures have risen about 0.8 deg C (1.4 deg F) since pre-industrial times.

The entire decade of 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record, according to NOAA., AP 5/31/12

And the average temperature in the decade of the 1990s was warmer than any previous decade since records began. Surpassed only by the 2000's.

2013 was the 37th year in a row that global temps were above 20th century average. 9 of the 10 warmest years all occurred during the 13 years of the 21st century

[font color = blue] >>Not to mention the stories about fudged data that keep showing up. Here's one from just yesterday:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
<<[/font]

Hmm, interesting title, "The scandal of fiddled global warming data The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record"

You can find all kinds of right wing whack-a-doodle stories all over the Internet written by carbon industry - paid hacks. They are not hard to find if you look for them.

Have you ever read the book "Doubt Is Their Product" ?

[font color = blue] >>I certainly believe we should continue to improve on what we've already done. <<[/font]

Good, so you believe what 97% of climate scientists believe, despite the right-wing hacks

[font color = blue] >>I just don't know who has the smarts to say that the temperature right now is exactly where we have to be. <<[/font]

Dunno either. But rising sea level (caused by global warming) is a problem.

Melting glaciers and snow-packs is a big problem. The snow and ice that accumulate in the mountains in winter act as big water reservoirs that feed the rivers that flow from them during the growing season and make agriculture possible in many areas (as it is, we're rapidly depleting ground water which is expensive and energy-intensive to pump). These snow and ice packs are rapidly shrinking and disappearing.

40% phytoplankton decline - a study published in Nature in July found that global populations of phytoplankton have declined about 40% since 1950, linked with "increasing sea surface temperatures" -- Nation 1/31/11

Ocean acidification and coral reefs dying....

William Seger

(10,742 posts)
25. Yup, "could cost billions of dollars"
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 03:26 PM
Jun 2014

... which is to say, a tiny fraction of the profits they're raking in. There will come a time when the price tag of ignoring climate change will make that look like pennies, and it won't be the industries making the profits now that will pay it. Republicanism defined: Privatize the profits and leave the liabilities to the public.

elleng

(130,156 posts)
14. Different headline/same story: Justices, With Limits, Let E.P.A. Curb Power-Plant Gases.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 12:20 PM
Jun 2014

and first paragraph: The Supreme Court on Monday handed President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency a victory in its efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources like power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/us/justices-with-limits-let-epa-curb-power-plant-gases.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

broadcaster75201

(387 posts)
19. Guys. Read the opinion. BAD headline. The EPA won big.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 12:30 PM
Jun 2014

In short, the EPA can regulate 83% of emissions instead of 86%. This was a HUGE win for the EPA.

Sick of moron headline writers.

pediatricmedic

(397 posts)
26. Ummm, the Supreme Court confirmed the EPA has the power to regulate GH gas emissions
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 03:31 PM
Jun 2014

Anyone legally required to get a permit falls within the jurisdiction of the EPA. Small entities such as individuals, schools, or churches are not required to get a permit, so the EPA cannot go after them. Only the small fish slipped through the EPA's net, otherwise the EPA got ALL the big fish.

This is a "big win".

There is no higher court for the industry to appeal to. Their only recourse is to gut the EPA or change the law.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
37. Reading the opinion, I agree with you....
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:32 PM
Jun 2014

Can the EPA regulate pollution, including Green House Gases from your Home? The Answer is a clean no. On the other hand, if the polluter is otherwise under EPA regulatory power, the EPA can include Green House gases in that Regulation. That is Scalia's opinion. The dispute between Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy vs Ginsburg, Bryer, Somtomyer and Kagan involved small polluters only.

If a polluter is so small that except for Green House Gases, the polluter would NOT come under the Regulatory Power of the EPA, that is where the division occurred.

Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy said in such cases it was NOT the intention of Congress to include so many small polluters therefore you must only count other pollution to determine if they are subject to EPA regulation. Once such a polluter is subject to EPA regulation, the EPA can also regulate how much Green House Gases such a polluter can emit.

Ginsburg, Bryer, Somtomyer and Kagan said, Congress's intention was to include all types of pollution when it came to determine who was a polluter to be regulated by the EPA and that includes Green House Gases.

Please note Thomas and Alito wanted to ban all regulation of Green House Gases by the EPA, they lost on that argument.

mostlyconfused

(211 posts)
45. Even in the case of Thomas and Alito...
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:05 PM
Jun 2014

Isn't the issue that they did not believe current law allowed the EPA to regulate...that this was more a separation of powers issue and whether it should go back to Congress to pass detailed laws regarding what and whom could be regulated, rather than the EPA having the latitude to do so?

I'm not arguing for their position, but I think saying that they "wanted to ban all regulation" may not be accurate.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
46. Please note no one is bringing up any constitutional issues, just what did Congress passed.
Tue Jun 24, 2014, 05:52 PM
Jun 2014

Thus Thomas and Alito are pointing out that in their opinion since Congress did not address the issue of Green House Gases in the 1970s when the Clean Air Act was passed, Congress thus did not give the EPA the Authority to regulate Green House Gases.

Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy disagree with Thomas and Alito for it is clear that by the 1960s Green House Gases were a concern, thus Green House Gases were clearly one of the pollutants Congress was concerned about when the Clean Air Act was passed. The premise of the movie Soylent Green is a 1973 movie that had as its pretense Global Warming caused by Green House Gases in addition to over population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

There were documentaries of the 1960s and 1970s the pointed out the effect of Green House gases, thus you can NOT rule that Green House Gases were NOT considered when Congress passed the original Clean Air Acts AND the subsequent changes under attack in this legal action.

I am sorry, I do not think Scalia, Roberts or Kennedy could find themselves saying Green House Gases were NOT included in the Clean Air Act, even if not expressly mentioned. On the other hand, they read the Records of Congress and agreed that the Act was to go after MAJOR polluters not all polluters no matter how small, thus they did NOT want to expand WHO would be affected by including Green House Gas. Thus the decision was written, Green House Gases are included but only if the polluter meets the requirements of other pollutants.

pediatricmedic

(397 posts)
24. So many fell for the slanted headline, the EPA won nearly everything it wanted
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 03:24 PM
Jun 2014

It just doesn't have the power to rewrite law on it's own(a power reserved for Congress). They also cannot target small entities such as individuals, schools, or churches that aren't legally required to get a permit. Otherwise the decision confirms that the EPA does indeed have the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

This isn't a moral victory for the industry, they lost, again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-limits-epas-ability-to-regulate-greenhouse-gas-emissions/2014/06/23/c56fc194-f1b1-11e3-914c-1fbd0614e2d4_story.html

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
33. True, I still can't wrap around moral and polluting industry used in the same sentence.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 05:22 PM
Jun 2014

Richard Wolf who wrote the piece showed his bias to support states rights and those who refuse to follow any federal rules or regulations.


Raine1967

(11,589 posts)
27. Does anyone actually READ the links anymore?
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 03:41 PM
Jun 2014

or has LBN become a victim of GD knee jerking? This is a complicated decision and one that isn't as bad as this op Headline is indicating. For example:

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/23/the-koch-brothers-take-a-loss-as-the-supreme-court-upholds-almost-all-new-obama-power-plant-epa-rules.html

In a complicated ruling today, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to the Koch Brothers by not overturning the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gasses.

The utility industry, the Chamber of Commerce, and 13 states led by Texas argued that the EPA does not have the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but by a vote of 7-2, the court ruled that the EPA does have the authority to regulate emissions at facilities that already release pollutants.

The EPA declared victory in a statement, “Today is a good day for all supporters of clean air and public health and those concerned with creating a better environment for future generations. We are pleased that the Court’s decision is consistent with our approach to focus on other Clean Air Act tools like the Clean Power Plan to limit carbon pollution as part of the President’s Climate Action Plan.”
Meanwhile, Justice Scalia grumbled that the EPA got almost everything they wanted out of the ruling.

The EPA wanted the power to regulate 86% of emissions, the court ruled that they could regulate 83%.


 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
40. I go straight to the actual Supreme Court Opinion and see what the Court actually wrote.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 10:13 PM
Jun 2014

See my post above with the actual Supreme Court Opinion referenced.

 

dballance

(5,756 posts)
30. From what I read it looks pretty good. They already answered the question about the NEW EPA rules.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 04:21 PM
Jun 2014

From my reading, and I'm not an attorney, it looks like they already made a ruling on whether or not the EPA has the authority to put in place the new rules President Obama recently announced with regard to new and existing Coal power plants.

That should save a lot of time and money spent by the government defending the rules against an industry that was certainly going to file suit to overturn the rules. It will also change their tactic of "sue and delay" as long as possible and, perhaps make them just go ahead, suck it up, and comply.

Scalia may have actually done us a favor for once. His decision can be cited by any judge across the nation now to throw out suits challenging the new EPA rules.

Someone correct me here if I'm reading this wrong.

 

YOHABLO

(7,358 posts)
38. Disturbing .. Money trumps Clean Air. Hmm. Has a SCOTUS judge ever been impeached?
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:35 PM
Jun 2014

Yeah guess I could Google it.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
39. Not since the early 1800s, and he was aquited by the Senate.
Mon Jun 23, 2014, 09:41 PM
Jun 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

http://web.archive.org/web/20070713052523/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_timeline/images_associates/007.html

Samuel Chase was impeached in 1805 but it was viewed as a Political Trial from day one, i.e. it was Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party out to get a Federalist. The case was dismissed in the Senate.
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court limits gree...