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 Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,071 posts)
Tue Sep 4, 2018, 08:21 PM Sep 2018

Here's where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh lands on big science issues

On Monday, President Donald Trump announced his pick of Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh sat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for 12 years after he was appointed by President George Bush.

Over his tenure, Kavanaugh’s rulings often favored industry and opposed government agency rules like net neutrality. Although his written opinions frequently acknowledge the importance of climate change policies, he’s a stickler for leaving legal decisions up to Congress. We looked through Kavanaugh’s record to see where he’s come down on major science-related rulings.

Weighing in on air pollution across state lines

Back in 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency called for 28 states to reduce their smog emissions, which are liable to drift across state lines. The fumes carry pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides that cause serious health problems. In his majority opinion, Kavanaugh struck down the emission rule on two accounts. His first complaint was that the restrictions went too far by requiring polluting states to reduce their emissions beyond the extra dose wafting over downwind states. Kavanaugh also wrote the EPA didn’t give offending states enough time to implement their own reductions plans.

Money should factor into government decisions to regulate emissions

When the EPA set emissions limits for mercury and other pollutants belching from oil- and gas-fired power plants, the regulations came with a hefty price tag—an estimated $9.6 billion each year. A case made its way to the D.C. Circuit Court in 2013, appealing the regulations. The suit was overturned, but Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the EPA should at least consider the financial costs when deciding to impose new regulations. “To be sure, EPA could conclude that the benefits outweigh the costs,” he wrote. “But the problem here is that EPA did not even consider the costs.”

https://www.popsci.com/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-science

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Here's where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh lands on big science issues (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Sep 2018 OP
So he's pro-business and anti-regulations that help the health of our citizens. CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2018 #1
I would say "never". defacto7 Sep 2018 #2

CaliforniaPeggy

(149,648 posts)
1. So he's pro-business and anti-regulations that help the health of our citizens.
Tue Sep 4, 2018, 08:26 PM
Sep 2018

He falls down in those areas, IMHO.

I spotted this:

Perhaps the word "not" belongs in the following sentence?

Money should factor into government decisions to regulate emissions


Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Here's where Supreme Cour...