Breaking News: SCOTUS Smacks Down EPA

[boedicca]

Just coming in...5-4 vote against Obama. Finally, a decent decision from the SCOTUS which requires the EPA to assess the costs of regulations.

This puts some brakes on Obama's Climate Change takeover of the Economy.

 

[Syriusly]

Just coming in...5-4 vote against Obama. Finally, a decent decision from the SCOTUS which requires the EPA to assess the costs of regulations.

This puts some brakes on Obama's Climate Change takeover of the Economy.

No link- no content about the ruling.

 

[boedicca]

I know - it's just breaking. I'm waiting for an article.

 

[SwimExpert]

Supreme Court EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act - CNNPolitics.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh look, the unelected tyranny judges just got a stay of execution from the Right.

 

[mdk]

Here is an article: I am sure more details will emerge as the day progresses.

Supreme Court EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act - CNNPolitics.com

 

[boedicca]

Oh look, the unelected tyranny judges just got a stay of execution from the Right.

You blithering boob. They actually properly interpreted the law on this one instead of writing a new one. If they had gone with the "Intent" philosophy to allow the EPA to do whatever it wants, that would have the abuse that was noted in the ACA ruling.

 

[boedicca]

Here is an article: I am sure more details will emerge as the day progresses.

Supreme Court EPA unreasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act - CNNPolitics.com

HAHAHA! Of course CNN is spinning it!

 

[martybegan]

Oh look, the unelected tyranny judges just got a stay of execution from the Right.

All this decision required is that the EPA take cost into consideration with regards to mercury regulations earlier in the process. It was not the creation of a right out of thin air, or ignoring the actual letter of the law for "intentions, nor as in the most recent decision, deciding "people" = "legislature.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

A small victory. The EPA has grown too large and carries too much weight. They needed a slap to the nose

 

[Iceweasel]

Imagine that. Considering the cost and impact of a regulation.

 

[SwimExpert]

Oh look, the unelected tyranny judges just got a stay of execution from the Right.

You blithering boob. They actually properly interpreted the law on this one instead of writing a new one. If they had gone with the "Intent" philosophy to allow the EPA to do whatever it wants, that would have the abuse that was noted in the ACA ruling.

Actually, I would imagine that "intent" was very much in play here. From what I can tell so far, at issue is the EPA's interpretation of statute. Because Congress ceded power to the EPA to set regulations, the agency has alot of leeway to things like this. But the court seems to have found the EPA to have gone beyond the limits Congress intended to bestow upon it.

 

[paulitician]

Expect a couple decisions to go against the Communist in Chief the next few days. Gotta still appear to be representing American interests. They'll throw America a few bones.

But unfortunately, it's just a scam. The goal is to destroy America's Constitution and sovereignty. It's all about the New World Order. America's independence must be squashed.

 

[nuhuh]

"The Supreme Court on Monday blocked one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives, one meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the 5-to-4 decision, joined by the court’s more conservative members.

Industry groups and some 20 states challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to regulate the emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its regulations would impose.

The Clean Air Act required the regulations to be “appropriate and necessary.” The challengers said the agency had run afoul of that law by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.

The agency responded that it was not required to take costs into account when it made the initial determination to regulate. But the agency added that it did so later in setting emissions standards and that, in any event, the benefits far outweighed the costs.

The two sides had very different understandings of the costs and benefits involved. Industry groups said the government had imposed annual costs of $9.6 billion to achieve about $6 million in benefits. The agency said the costs yielded tens of billions of dollars in benefits.

The decision, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46 was a setback for environmentalists." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us/supreme-court-blocks-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html

 

[SwimExpert]

Imagine that. Considering the cost and impact of a regulation.

The court's decision was not reached because the court generally finds it right or proper to consider the costs. The legislation in question required the EPA to consider the costs, and it failed to do that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh look, the unelected tyranny judges just got a stay of execution from the Right.

You blithering boob. They actually properly interpreted the law on this one instead of writing a new one. If they had gone with the "Intent" philosophy to allow the EPA to do whatever it wants, that would have the abuse that was noted in the ACA ruling.

So you concede they have the authority to interpret the laws as they see fit, all the hysterical howlings of the RWnuts on this forum notwithstanding.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just coming in...5-4 vote against Obama. Finally, a decent decision from the SCOTUS which requires the EPA to assess the costs of regulations.

This puts some brakes on Obama's Climate Change takeover of the Economy.

hmmm, how does one assess the cost of a regulation that impacts the health of a citizen?

Do we put a dollar value on the use of tobacco? If the farmer, manufacturer and retailer all make money on the sale of Marlboro's in a given year, and that income is greater than the cost of health care provided to smoker's, it is determined that cigarettes ought not be regulated?

How about derivatives? Do we take a lassiez faire position toward wall street?

That worked well last time (sarcasm alert)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh look, the unelected tyranny judges just got a stay of execution from the Right.

All this decision required is that the EPA take cost into consideration with regards to mercury regulations earlier in the process. It was not the creation of a right out of thin air, or ignoring the actual letter of the law for "intentions, nor as in the most recent decision, deciding "people" = "legislature.

The Court wrote a law. They wrote a law against the EPA doing what it did.

 

[boedicca]

Oh look, the unelected tyranny judges just got a stay of execution from the Right.

You blithering boob. They actually properly interpreted the law on this one instead of writing a new one. If they had gone with the "Intent" philosophy to allow the EPA to do whatever it wants, that would have the abuse that was noted in the ACA ruling.

Actually, I would imagine that "intent" was very much in play here. From what I can tell so far, at issue is the EPA's interpretation of statute. Because Congress ceded power to the EPA to set regulations, the agency has alot of leeway to things like this. But the court seems to have found the EPA to have gone beyond the limits Congress intended to bestow upon it.

The EPA found that the costs far exceeded the benefits and then disregarding that finding and went ahead with the regulation. The EPA exceeded its authority by doing so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh look, the unelected tyranny judges just got a stay of execution from the Right.

All this decision required is that the EPA take cost into consideration with regards to mercury regulations earlier in the process. It was not the creation of a right out of thin air, or ignoring the actual letter of the law for "intentions, nor as in the most recent decision, deciding "people" = "legislature.

I thought all of our rights were the creation of the Creator. How could the SCOTUS have created a right?