Obama/EPA lose big at Supreme Court

[OKTexas]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Huge EPA Regulations


Smackdown That's one for the good guys..

Methinks he doesn't know what a "Smackdown" is…



But the court said the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions from industries already required to get permits for other forms of emissions. As a result, Scalia said, the agency will be able to regulate sources responsible for 83% of all greenhouse gases emitted from stationary sources nationwide.


Read more at BREAKING: Supreme Court Strikes Down Huge EPA Regulations

The smackdown came when they told the EPA that they can not lower statutory thresholds for enforcement, that's what they tried to do.

 

[bendog]

Well it is sort of annoying. LGS puts up a moonbat link, although she DID put up a link. Still, my recollection was that the Scotus decision was pretty much ... nothing new here, move along. So, I went to the scotus blog, to find that moonbat story was moonbat. But, I think you give it a pass. LGS may just get her news from moonbat sources.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama/EPA lose big at Supreme Court is a hyperbolic silly statement.

The Court recognizes EPA inherent authority while creating certain exceptions.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, because who needs clean air and clean water!

Hey, let's stop growing food because farms are the biggest source of water pollution. After all, who needs food, right?

You're a fucking moron, Joe.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, because who needs clean air and clean water!

YAWN

you mean who needs jobs; when you have trillions in welfare to give out?

So, we should pollute our water and air so that a few rich assholes can make a profit?

Really?

How's this for an idea. You have to comply with the clean air rules, and we aren't letting your products in if they were made in a country that doesn't.

Zero pollution is impossible, Joe blow job. The only question is how much pollution to allow. Our environment is already clean enough. Reducing pollution further will only drive up the cost of everything by drastic amounts. There's a principle of economics called "diminishing returns," and we have long passed the point where further improvements are worth a cost. You would understand that if you weren't such a dumbass who didn't know jack squat about economics.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama/EPA lose big at Supreme Court is a hyperbolic silly statement.

The Court recognizes EPA inherent authority while creating certain exceptions.

Consider the source and consider the rightwing modus operandi around here. They repeatedly put up threads with thread titles that aren't true;

I guess they have a crazy notion that they are fooling someone.

 

[bedowin62]

Obama/EPA lose big at Supreme Court is a hyperbolic silly statement.

The Court recognizes EPA inherent authority while creating certain exceptions.

Consider the source and consider the rightwing modus operandi around here. They repeatedly put up threads with thread titles that aren't true;

I guess they have a crazy notion that they are fooling someone.

idiots on the Left call record welfare and food stamps "forward progress"

how long can you get away with that crazy notion?

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, because who needs clean air and clean water!

Yeah, because who needs to follow the Constitution.

I think that air and water are a little more important than a badly written document by 200 year old slave rapists.

You're a moron, Joe. No one is proposing to destroy our environment.

It's nice to see you admit you despise the Constitution.

You're a fucking Nazi.

 

[RoadVirus]

Yeah, because who needs clean air and clean water!

There's regulations and then there's OVERREGULATION. Obama and his whores at the EPA believe in job-crippling overregulation.

 

[RoadVirus]

Yeah, because who needs clean air and clean water!

Yeah, because who needs to follow the Constitution.

I think that air and water are a little more important than a badly written document by 200 year old slave rapists.

Sounds like Obama's opinion of the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama/EPA lose big at Supreme Court is a hyperbolic silly statement.

The Court recognizes EPA inherent authority while creating certain exceptions.

Consider the source and consider the rightwing modus operandi around here. They repeatedly put up threads with thread titles that aren't true;

I guess they have a crazy notion that they are fooling someone.

idiots on the Left call record welfare and food stamps "forward progress"

how long can you get away with that crazy notion?

So you're saying that the author of this thread is the equivalent of someone who calls record food stamps progress?

Okay.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This may be the most insightful headline on the issue, from the Wire:

Everyone Declares Victory After Supreme Court's EPA Ruling

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Act the EPA was devising these new regs under was the Clean Air Act signed by George H. Bush.

In short, the GOP was all for clean air. Until the Negro did it.

Funny that you ignore the fact that Obama didn't write the regulations, yet still think people are racist because they disagree with the EPA writing laws.

Except the EPA wasn't writing laws, they were writing regulations, which is what every government department does after Congress passes overall legislation.

Now, back before the Negro made you all batshit crazy, Republicans used to understand this.

Except, in order to write the regulations that covered small businesses, they had to rewrite the portion of the law that said they didn't have the authority to regulate small businesses.

Get it now?

By the way, I am not a Republican, a racist, a bigot, or an idiot. To bad the you can only make one of those claims.

 

[Peach]

Funny that you ignore the fact that Obama didn't write the regulations, yet still think people are racist because they disagree with the EPA writing laws.

Except the EPA wasn't writing laws, they were writing regulations, which is what every government department does after Congress passes overall legislation.

Now, back before the Negro made you all batshit crazy, Republicans used to understand this.

Except, in order to write the regulations that covered small businesses, they had to rewrite the portion of the law that said they didn't have the authority to regulate small businesses.

Get it now?

By the way, I am not a Republican, a racist, a bigot, or an idiot. To bad the you can only make one of those claims.

"conservativetribune" is barely an online news site, in no way a place to find legal analysis.

 

[Peach]

This may be the most insightful headline on the issue, from the Wire:

Everyone Declares Victory After Supreme Court's EPA Ruling

Yes:

"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," the EPA said in a release. "The Supreme Court's decision is a win for our efforts to reduce carbon pollution, because it allows EPA, states and other permitting authorities to continue to require carbon pollution limits in permits for the largest pollution sources."

That portion of the decision was decided 7-2 and attracted support from the court's four liberals;only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

As a result, Scalia said, the agency will be able to regulate sources responsible for 83% of all greenhouse gases emitted from stationary sources nationwide, rather than 86% – a negligible reduction.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the lead opinion, said from the bench that the Court was leaving the agency with authority to cut back on such pollution at eighty-three percent of the sources across the country, while denying it authority over an additional three percent. “EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case,” he commented.

Congress specified the specific threshold amounts of greenhouse gas pollution that EPA could regulate, and thus the agency had no power to rewrite those limits, even if it did so to make regulation more manageable by lowering the limits so that EPA was not trying to control such pollution beyond major sources — like power plants — to include even apartment buildings and schools. If the law as written could not be carried out without bringing under EPA supervision “millions of small sources,” it was up to Congress, not the agency, to narrow the clear terms of the law, the opinion made clear.

Opinion analysis: EPA mostly wins, but with criticism : SCOTUSblog

Again, the issue had noting to do with the EPA’s regulatory authority, with the constitutionally of that authority, or with the constitutionality of environmental regulatory policy overall.

The Agency will continue to function as it did prior to the ruling, with its authority undiminished.

Therefore, for the partisan right to try to distort the ruling as some sort of a ‘defeat’ for the Agency or its mission is to seek to contrive a lie; that the OP and others on the right would attempt to propagate such a lie comes as no surprise, of course.

 

[JFK_USA]

and with any luck at all, maybe someday we can be just like china with it's filthy air and plentiful cheap labor.

usa! Usa! Usa!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the lead opinion, said from the bench that the Court was leaving the agency with authority to cut back on such pollution at eighty-three percent of the sources across the country, while denying it authority over an additional three percent. “EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case,” he commented.

Congress specified the specific threshold amounts of greenhouse gas pollution that EPA could regulate, and thus the agency had no power to rewrite those limits, even if it did so to make regulation more manageable by lowering the limits so that EPA was not trying to control such pollution beyond major sources — like power plants — to include even apartment buildings and schools. If the law as written could not be carried out without bringing under EPA supervision “millions of small sources,” it was up to Congress, not the agency, to narrow the clear terms of the law, the opinion made clear.

Opinion analysis: EPA mostly wins, but with criticism : SCOTUSblog

Again, the issue had noting to do with the EPA’s regulatory authority, with the constitutionally of that authority, or with the constitutionality of environmental regulatory policy overall.

The Agency will continue to function as it did prior to the ruling, with its authority undiminished.

Therefore, for the partisan right to try to distort the ruling as some sort of a ‘defeat’ for the Agency or its mission is to seek to contrive a lie; that the OP and others on the right would attempt to propagate such a lie comes as no surprise, of course.

Did you miss the 5-4 decision striking down the EPA's attempt to rewrite law by fiat regulation?

 

[Jarlaxle]

well at least you admit you're a wannabe fascist and subversive

No, a fascist is a guy who let's a big corporations run roughshod over the public good.

Joe is a statist, who believes that once anyone who agrees with him has power, that power can be used without limit or control.

Fascism has nothing to do with corporations as we have them now, its a form of statism that allows businesses to maintain ownership as long as they follow the government TO THE LETTER.

Which makes you a budding little fascist.

No, it's worse than that: Joey is a CULTIST who believes that ANY AND ALL ACTIONS by the State are acceptable.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And with any luck at all, maybe someday we can be just like China with it's filthy air and plentiful cheap labor.

If we continue to let the government get more and more power, it probably will happen. After all, when the government has no competition or fear of being removed, it can do whatever the hell it wants.

Note that the DIRTIEST places are under totalitarian governments...