Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

  1. #1
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:23 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,839

    Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

    A win for the good guys for once with only the "usual suspects" Scalia and Thomas, voting against

    Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday resurrected Environmental Protection Agency rules targeting air pollution that drifts across state borders, handing a victory to the Obama administration on one of its major environmental efforts.

    The agency for years, under two administrations, has struggled to carry out a directive under the federal Clean Air Act to protect downwind states from pollution generated in other states, mostly from coal-fired power plants. The EPA’s rules from 2011 were challenged by a coalition of upwind states and industry, which prevailed in lower courts.

    But the Supreme Court justices ruled 6 to 2 that the latest effort could be implemented
    Now in a nation where each state could make up its own pollution rules, the 'down-wind' states would be **** out of luck. Same in a nation governed under libertarian principles advocating real "free markets" I think it is a good thing we don't live in the utopia that some Americans advocate
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  2. #2
    American
    cpgrad08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Lakewood,WA
    Last Seen
    10-18-17 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,388
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    A win for the good guys for once with only the "usual suspects" Scalia and Thomas, voting against



    Now in a nation where each state could make up its own pollution rules, the 'down-wind' states would be **** out of luck. Same in a nation governed under libertarian principles advocating real "free markets" I think it is a good thing we don't live in the utopia that some Americans advocate
    Good thing we don't live in the Utopia you would advocate.

  3. #3
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,524

    Re: Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

    More government control of the private sector. Just what we need!
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  4. #4
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:23 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,839

    Re: Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    More government control of the private sector. Just what we need!
    Yep, never mind the health consequences of air pollution - they don't cost us anything, amirite?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    More government control of the private sector. Just what we need!
    I thought you believed in states rights so why should states have to deal with pollution generated from other states? If those states that polluted other states regulated themselves from this happening, there wouldn't BE a need for the feds to get involved. Thank the states that are polluting for this.

  6. #6
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,524

    Re: Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    I thought you believed in states rights so why should states have to deal with pollution generated from other states? If those states that polluted other states regulated themselves from this happening, there wouldn't BE a need for the feds to get involved. Thank the states that are polluting for this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Yep, never mind the health consequences of air pollution - they don't cost us anything, amirite?
    Are you both so naive to believe it's really about clean air water?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  7. #7
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Are you both so naive to believe it's really about clean air water?
    Are you really so delusional that you see conspiracy in the idea that Iowa shouldn't be able to dump all sorts of nasty stuff into Missouri's air?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #8
    Sage
    longview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,372

    Re: Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

    Coal plants are a really dirty way of generating power,
    but the consequences of shutting down a bunch of them, may have negative
    impacts as well.
    Starting in about 1990, we should have been building about 200 nuclear plants.
    Because of Government regulation, coal plants were built instead.
    I worry we could be shutting down power plants, before we have replacement capacity,
    and what that could do to electric rates.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    NE WI.
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,029

    Re: Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    More government control of the private sector. Just what we need!
    `
    When the private sector operates in a manner that is either irresponsible (which is quite often) or without care to the human factors involved, that sort of begs for government involvement.
    `

  10. #10
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:23 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,839

    Re: Supreme Court upholds EPA rule limiting cross-state pollution

    His written dissent in this case has a really big boo boo.

    Justice Antonin Scalia makes ‘hugely embarrassing’ blunder in latest dissentThe arch conservative jurist wrote that the majority’s decision runs counter to a unanimous ruling by the court in 2001, mistakenly claiming that the court struck down the agency’s ability to override cost considerations when setting regulations.

    TPM’s Sahil Kapur quoted the dissent, “This is not the first time EPA has sought to convert the Clean Air Act into a mandate for cost-effective regulation. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457 (2001), confronted EPA’s contention that it could consider costs in setting [National Ambient Air Quality Standards].”

    The dissent — in which Scalia was joined by fellow right-leaning justice Clarence Thomas — was factually inaccurate, however, because the EPA was actually arguing the opposite in the 2001 case. The agency argued that the benefits to the population of reducing coal-generated air pollution outweigh considerations of cost. It was the trucking industry that argued that curbing pollution poses an undue economic burden on polluters.

    The author of that unanimous 2001 decision was, in fact, Scalia.
    If you don't like the source, please ignore the fact that Raw Story has a Scribd link to the actual dissent because we all know the left never ever provides accurate information
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •