Darkwind
Diamond Member
- Jun 18, 2009
- 35,378
- 20,137
- 1,915
Sometimes one runs across unexpected references that at first, set you back in your chair as you try to comprehend what was being said. Usually, you'll find these references in opinion pieces and articles. Not this time however;
While doing research for a court brief using the IRAC method of analysis, I was reading My teams chosen court case. The SCOTUS review of EME Homer City Generation v. EPA. This is a case of a city suing the EPA on the basis of its implementation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) without giving the city or state a chance to implement a SIP, or State Implementation Plan. The issue revolves around the Good Neighbor Policy of the Clean Air Act and the requirements of determining the contribution of upwind states contribution to downwind states air quality. That is the purpose of the SCOTUS review....however, that isn't what set Me back on My heals. It was a reference in section 1594 paragraph 2 that was amazing because of where it is located. It reads,
I can't take the time to debate it now, but I'm actually quite interested in what the progressives think of such language in a SCOTUS judgement.....
oops...forgot the link..
Google Scholar
While doing research for a court brief using the IRAC method of analysis, I was reading My teams chosen court case. The SCOTUS review of EME Homer City Generation v. EPA. This is a case of a city suing the EPA on the basis of its implementation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) without giving the city or state a chance to implement a SIP, or State Implementation Plan. The issue revolves around the Good Neighbor Policy of the Clean Air Act and the requirements of determining the contribution of upwind states contribution to downwind states air quality. That is the purpose of the SCOTUS review....however, that isn't what set Me back on My heals. It was a reference in section 1594 paragraph 2 that was amazing because of where it is located. It reads,
Further complicating the problem, pollutants do not emerge from the smokestacks of an upwind State and uniformly migrate downwind. Some pollutants stay within upwind States' borders, the wind carries others to downwind States, and some subset of that group drifts to States without air quality problems. "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth." The Holy Bible, John 3:8 (King James Version). In crafting a solution to the problem of interstate air pollution, regulators must account for the vagaries of the wind.
I can't take the time to debate it now, but I'm actually quite interested in what the progressives think of such language in a SCOTUS judgement.....
oops...forgot the link..
Google Scholar
Last edited: