Supreme Court's latest nonsense - it takes four to tango but five to win
The Supremes have decided to accept an industry/US Chamber appeal of a lower court decision saying the EPA was "unambiguously correct" when it used regulating greenhouse gases for motor vehicles as a trigger to begin regulating emissions by power plants. They refused to consider broader questions, including reconsideration of their 2007 decision that effectively mandated the beginning of EPA regulation. The EPA also interpreted legal requirements of the Clean Air Act to allow them to focus only on major polluters - the forces of darkness tried to make a poison pill of the law by forcing them to regulate everybody, and AFAICT that's been shut down.
This issue involves arcana of the CAA, much of it beyond my area. I can just say that it takes only four of the nine supremes to accept an appeal but it takes five to win. The original 2007 vote was 5-4. Granting cert to consider the appeal doesn't necessarily indicate a change in the vote count, but it does indicate that at least four think they've got a chance to ruin the global environment.
While it's legal arcana, the environmental implications are huge. That the US Chamber is again choosing the fossil fuel industry interests over the green business interests shows its dysfunction in failing to represent American businesses.
Posts
12 comments:
"but it does indicate that at least four think they've got a chance to ruin the global environment."
What a pathetic statement. you should not be in any government position, being so clueless as to the purpose of each branch of government.
Were they twisting their mustaches as they ruled?
1
Speaking of the EPA...WTF is this?
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=bcf73a09-9371-2ef5-f1cf-9ca752c89cad
Coeruleus - that would be Inhofe's blog.
Whoops, it was Vitter, not Inhofe. Anyway, nothing worth noting.
Btw watched the video you posted last week of yourself. You are a smirking little %$$! aren't you?
1
If you don't have something coherent to say about the legal question at hand, you shouldn't be cheerleading for the result you want. Nor should you be calling anything nonsense - as you admit, you aren't able to make a judgment like that.
Carrot eater, congrats on actually constructing an argument. Take note, Anon 1.
Anyway, I suppose "nonsense" might be a bit of exaggeration, as is intentionally ruining the environment (except for Scalia and Alito). OTOH, given the Reagan-appointed Sentelle participation in the panel below, together with some incredible nonsense I've seen from the Court, I think it's not too bad a description of Court behavior.
Still void of any legal arguments Brian, just more of your politically bigoted opinion.
For the record the Supreme Court function is definitely not to save or ruin the planet's environment. You must be a super human knowing the intent of the four justices either that or a political hack/bigot who only cheerleads for a particular side.
What a world you live in, people you disagree with are evil with evil intent to destroy us all.
1
Well, we talk here about scientific illiteracy. Please don't spread legal illiteracy while you're at it. Leave analysis and commentary about obscure interpretations of the Clean Air Act to legal experts. If one is not capable of that analysis, one is not capable of forming an informed opinion of how the Court should rule.
"Dog pile on the Rabett, dog pile on the Rabett."
Thanks Bugs!
1
Master baiter. Yawn.
Carrot Eater, the SWANCC case was an eye-opener to me, far more than Bush v Gore, on how much nonsense comes from the Supreme Court. The willingness of some rightwingers to swing about on their view of the Commerce Clause depending on whether it dealt with a political issue they favored (criminalizing marijuana use) or disfavored (Affordable Care Act) shows more nonsense. Even some liberal justices in the Affordable Care Act case were just making things up in making the Medicare provisions voluntary and effectively giving states control over federal budgeting.
So yeah, there's lots of nonsense, and Sentelle's support suggests that just taking cert is nonsense, although I did admit I don't know the specifics. The main point I was conveying is that taking cert doesn't imply a change in the vote from Mass v EPA.
Post a Comment