EPA Loses In 6-3 SCOTUS Decision

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The court has no idea how to address climate change. So it looks like all we'll have is a bunch of dirty States.

Actually, it appears it's the Congress who doesn't, which was noted in the article had you read it.

 

[berg80]

The nation is splitting apart. The divergent sides have no interest in recognizing the laws of the other. Or the authority either.

The court has recently entered a new era of partisan division. If you look at close cases — 5 to 4 or 5 to 3 — going back to the 1950s to illustrate this division, you will see that the percentage of votes cast in the liberal direction by justices who were appointed by Democratic presidents has skyrocketed. And the same trajectory applies on the other side: The percentage of votes cast in the conservative direction by justices who were appointed by Republican presidents has also shot up.

The trend is extreme — and alarming. In the 1950s and 1960s, the ideological biases of Republican appointees and Democratic appointees were relatively modest. The gap between them has steadily grown, but even as late as the early 1990s, it was possible for justices to vote in ideologically unpredictable ways. In the closely divided cases in the 1991 term, for example, the single Democratic appointee on the court, Byron White, voted more conservatively than all but two of the Republican appointees, Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist. This was a time when many Republican appointees — like Sandra Day O’Connor, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and David Souter — frequently cast liberal votes.
In the past 10 years, however, justices have hardly ever voted against the ideology of the president who appointed them. Only Justice Kennedy, named to the court by Ronald Reagan, did so with any regularity. That is why with his replacement on the court an ideologically committed Republican justice, it will become impossible to regard the court as anything but a partisan institution.

Opinion | If the Supreme Court Is Nakedly Political, Can It Be Just? (Published 2018)​

Rigidly divided by both ideology and party, the court risks losing public legitimacy.

www.nytimes.com

The court's loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the public is for good reason. It isn't just the perception it has become a political organization, it's the reality that it has.

 

[bodecea]

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday on a high-profile case centered on the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion for the Court; the three liberal justices dissented.

“Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” Roberts writes.

SCOTUS Shackles EPA’s Authority To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Power Plants

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday on a high-profile case centered on the EPAs ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

talkingpointsmemo.com

That's quite a record the Roberts' court is amassing. Cavalierly overturning precedent, eliminating voting rights, stripping women of bodily autonomy, exposing the US to more gun violence, and now making it more difficult for an agency of the government to fight climate change. All in line with conservative ideology if not legal principle.

Drop all governmental protection, health, and safety regulations.................in red states.

 

[okfine]

Actually, it appears it's the Congress who doesn't, which was noted in the article had you read it.

It will end up in State legislators hands.

 

[bodecea]

The court has no idea how to address climate change. So it looks like all we'll have is a bunch of dirty States.

Keep it in the red states. They don't mind.

 

[berg80]

Those rulings you mention are based on the Constitution.

Surely you'll acknowledge they are based on a convenient interpretation of the Constitution that just happens to coincide with extreme right wing ideology. Or perhaps honesty isn't your thing.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday on a high-profile case centered on the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion for the Court; the three liberal justices dissented.

“Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” Roberts writes.

SCOTUS Shackles EPA’s Authority To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Power Plants

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday on a high-profile case centered on the EPAs ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

talkingpointsmemo.com

That's quite a record the Roberts' court is amassing. Cavalierly overturning precedent, eliminating voting rights, stripping women of bodily autonomy, exposing the US to more gun violence, and now making it more difficult for an agency of the government to fight climate change. All in line with conservative ideology if not legal principle.

This was the correct ruling based upon the Constitution. The EPA was given way too much power. If such things need to be done they should be done by Congress.

 

[Flash]

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday on a high-profile case centered on the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion for the Court; the three liberal justices dissented.

“Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” Roberts writes.

SCOTUS Shackles EPA’s Authority To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Power Plants

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday on a high-profile case centered on the EPAs ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

talkingpointsmemo.com

That's quite a record the Roberts' court is amassing. Cavalierly overturning precedent, eliminating voting rights, stripping women of bodily autonomy, exposing the US to more gun violence, and now making it more difficult for an agency of the government to fight climate change. All in line with conservative ideology if not legal principle.

So the Moon Bats want appointed government bureaucrats making up their own laws instead of elected representatives?

How peculiar.

 

[ColonelAngus]

No, the EPA is not bullshit. This country was filthy when the agency was created back in the 70s when it came to air, land, and water pollution. The Cuyahoga River caught on fire because of all the chemicals in the water floating on the surface. I have relatives from Pittsburgh who had told me stories of how their mother or grandmother used to have to wash the curtains in their homes once or twice a year because they'd start turning black from all the soot in the air generated from the steel plants.

The EPA was needed and still is to make sure companies don't pollute our natural resources, but that doesn't mean they get unlimited autonomy to do what they want. Any rules and regulations they propose should have to be passed by Congress.

The free market handles this.

MISES says so. Jo Jorgensen is a fraud. Your vote was bullshit,

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The nation is splitting apart. The divergent sides have no interest in recognizing the laws of the other. Or the authority either.

Pretty much all by design. A divided people are far easier to control than a united one

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The free market handles this.

In theory. In practice it doesn't or the EPA wouldn't have been needed for the reasons I just stated.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Surely you'll acknowledge they are based on a convenient interpretation of the Constitution that just happens to coincide with extreme right wing ideology. Or perhaps honesty isn't your thing.

As opposed to left-wing fantasy?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We are rapidly approaching neither side recognizing the authority of the other. Then we are at the point of "When in the course of human events...."

 

[Weatherman2020]

God Bless President Trump.

 

[TNHarley]

Surely you'll acknowledge they are based on a convenient interpretation of the Constitution that just happens to coincide with extreme right wing ideology. Or perhaps honesty isn't your thing.

You mean states rights, exceeding the limits of federal power, and restricting constitutional rights?
Lol ya big dummy

 

[Mashmont]

More to follow when the links are up.

The Supreme Court restricted the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants Thursday, potentially dealing a crucial blow to the Biden administration’s plans to fight climate change.

The 6-3 decision overruled a lower court decision that gave the federal agency virtually unlimited regulatory powers through the Clean Air Act.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that “it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.”

Supreme Court restricts EPA’s authority to regulate power plant emissions

Whoo! The previous decisions were mere foreplay compared to this.

This is really a big deal. The EPA has cost my business tens of thousands with it's silly regulations. I wonder if we can go back to releasing freon instead of having to recapture it. I wonder if treated lumber can now go back to the old formula where you didn't need special expensive coated screws.

What regulations does this undo? Who makes the call?

 

[Roudy]

The nation is splitting apart. The divergent sides have no interest in recognizing the laws of the other. Or the authority either.

Obama poisoned this country with his divisive anti American, anti capitalist, Marxist ideology, and is currently running the Biden presidency from behind the curtains. That is why it is such a catastrophic failure.

 

[Dekster]

More to follow when the links are up.

The Supreme Court restricted the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants Thursday, potentially dealing a crucial blow to the Biden administration’s plans to fight climate change.

The 6-3 decision overruled a lower court decision that gave the federal agency virtually unlimited regulatory powers through the Clean Air Act.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that “it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.”

Supreme Court restricts EPA’s authority to regulate power plant emissions

Whoo! The previous decisions were mere foreplay compared to this.

Shocking since they upheld the Clean Air Act's delegated authority unanimously in 2001. I guess Trump really has finally broken America for a generation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Surely you'll acknowledge they are based on a convenient interpretation of the Constitution that just happens to coincide with extreme right wing ideology. Or perhaps honesty isn't your thing.

Just dumb luck, huh?

Show me anywhere in the Constitution the word "bureaucracy." Our founders did not want unelected officials to rule over the country. They wanted people to have redress over laws, fines and taxation created by those in power. IMO, all bureaucracies should be removed from our federal government. All laws, taxation and fines should be written by our representatives that we vote on, not some nameless faceless bureaucrat.

 

[skews13]

No problemo. Just as long as we can dump our pollutants in your blue states like your "president" does with his illegals.

You can’t. Those rivers and streams are in your states shit for brains.

Enjoy that next glass of water you and your kids will be drinking.

I’m sure it’s doing wonders for the fishing industry in your states. Not to mention all of the other wildlife that drinks from those waterways.

We’re you a biological defect, or did mommy drop you the n your head when you were a baby?