• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS Rules Against EPA Pollution Rules

Oh my, BO peep's roll-out comes to an end, huh? And on one of his really special issues.
shocked.gif
Scalia says.....No. You don't just deem fit what you think you can.




The majority decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the EPA has to consider the costs of complying with the rules and sent the air pollution regulations back to the agency. "EPA must consider cost — including cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost," Scalia wrote in agreeing with the industry.

The decision will have repercussions for other EPA regulations that are key to Obama's climate change agenda. The EPA will now have to examine the cost of compliance for the Clean Power Plan, which is at the heart of the president's environmental agenda.

The EPA had argued that the rules are both appropriate and necessary regardless of the costs, and that it has the discretion under the law to act as it deems fit in regulating hazardous pollutants.....snip~

Supreme Court rules against EPA on pollution rules | WashingtonExaminer.com
 
Good news.

But the courts need to do more to bring this rogue agency under control.

What we really need is someone with the political balls to end the EPA as we know it today, and replace the organization with something that has more accountability to Congress and cannot at their own discretion come up with regulation policy. An advocacy group I do not mind, but how the EPA operates today is damn near Gestapo like all with their own militarized police force.
 
If you pee your pants at the mere mention of the word "coal", you've unwittingly placed your crotch under the authority and regulation of the EPA. Your crotch is now considered a "wetland". Serves you right.
 
Thank God the EPA will have to put corporate profits before environmental and human health. Now I can finally get my daily dose of mercury vapors again. :)
 
That snark aside, however, I'm open to a compromise solution whereby states can regulate non-carbon air pollution within its own borders. But the moment non-carbon air pollution crosses a state line, then I believe that the EPA has every right to step in.
 
That snark aside, however, I'm open to a compromise solution whereby states can regulate non-carbon air pollution within its own borders. But the moment non-carbon air pollution crosses a state line, then I believe that the EPA has every right to step in.

Funny, your President wasn't.

Now, Corporations aren't being forced into a " compromise " that winds up hurting the Middle class.

Thanks to this ruling , Middle class Americans won't be forced to fund the Progressive scam that is Global warming through higher cost on energy, products and services.
 
No development allowed!

We should have a new Monopoly game where development is required to meet all the possible regulations and zoning ordinances, the required financing restrictions, and contracting procedures deemed acceptable. That would be a sobering dose of reality. We must care for the environment, but we need to do it in a way that allows for human development at the same time.
 
So, the EPA now has to consider costs.

I wonder when the Congress will begin to consider costs?
 
So, the EPA now has to consider costs.

I wonder when the Congress will begin to consider costs?

:lol: To be fair the EPA did this to themselves by blatantly ignoring that the health of industry is part of their job.
 
So, the EPA now has to consider costs.

I wonder when the Congress will begin to consider costs?

Maybe when interest rates move significantly up? Nah. They'll never go up much. Never happened before.
 
We should have a new Monopoly game where development is required to meet all the possible regulations and zoning ordinances, the required financing restrictions, and contracting procedures deemed acceptable. That would be a sobering dose of reality. We must care for the environment, but we need to do it in a way that allows for human development at the same time.



You mean like reasonable laws?

**** that. Not when they have such a great end-of-the-world scenario with which to fulfill they're attention deficit.....

We beat them, drove them into the political back woods here in the last election, winning on a "drill, baby, drill" platform. The overwhelming majority of the populace has said "drill"!

Yet, we are trying to lay in a new, modern, self sensing pipeline to join with the southern lower mainland network feeding the airports etc. and have been faced with the usual need for court injunctions to keep them off the property, hearings after hearings to deal with yet another unfounded ecological accusation, and protests, protests, protests, usually the same rent-a-crowd and some First Nations beating hand held drums. The TV stations don't even have to go, they can use footage from the first one.

And no one cares, if asked most will say "if we need it, build it", and yet a three year project will take ten.

Its an industry now, a subsidiary of global warming
 
We should have a new Monopoly game where development is required to meet all the possible regulations and zoning ordinances, the required financing restrictions, and contracting procedures deemed acceptable. That would be a sobering dose of reality. We must care for the environment, but we need to do it in a way that allows for human development at the same time.

I noticed that the Supreme Court didn't consider the cost of all the regulations they must comply to in the ruling. I think if they are really going to go with the cost angle they have to consider the cost of all regulations.
 
Oh my, BO peep's roll-out comes to an end, huh? And on one of his really special issues.
shocked.gif
Scalia says.....No. You don't just deem fit what you think you can.




The majority decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the EPA has to consider the costs of complying with the rules and sent the air pollution regulations back to the agency. "EPA must consider cost — including cost of compliance — before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary. It will be up to the agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost," Scalia wrote in agreeing with the industry.

The decision will have repercussions for other EPA regulations that are key to Obama's climate change agenda. The EPA will now have to examine the cost of compliance for the Clean Power Plan, which is at the heart of the president's environmental agenda.

The EPA had argued that the rules are both appropriate and necessary regardless of the costs, and that it has the discretion under the law to act as it deems fit in regulating hazardous pollutants.....snip~

Supreme Court rules against EPA on pollution rules | WashingtonExaminer.com

If SCOTUS is requiring the EPA to make a cost benefit analysis of their regulations, I suspect that they'll skew the numbers / results to only further justify what they've made their ideological minds up on already. It's kinda like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house, don't you think? I mean just the way the admin cooked the ObamaCare numbers, right? A track record of doing so already established, in my view. Needs independent review, analysis and vetting.

What we really need is someone with the political balls to end the EPA as we know it today, and replace the organization with something that has more accountability to Congress and cannot at their own discretion come up with regulation policy. An advocacy group I do not mind, but how the EPA operates today is damn near Gestapo like all with their own militarized police force.

Indeed it does. But whom? Certainly not from the establishment GOP.

Funny, your President wasn't.

Now, Corporations aren't being forced into a " compromise " that winds up hurting the Middle class.

Thanks to this ruling , Middle class Americans won't be forced to fund the Progressive scam that is Global warming through higher cost on energy, products and services.

Indeed. This decision can only help the recovery, rather than further stymieing it.

We should have a new Monopoly game where development is required to meet all the possible regulations and zoning ordinances, the required financing restrictions, and contracting procedures deemed acceptable. That would be a sobering dose of reality. We must care for the environment, but we need to do it in a way that allows for human development at the same time.

Agreed.
 
Indeed it does. But whom? Certainly not from the establishment GOP.

Unsure. Probably someone who leans far enough Libertarian to make the compelling argument. In other words, no one in the current 114th Congress qualifies.
 
If SCOTUS is requiring the EPA to make a cost benefit analysis of their regulations, I suspect that they'll skew the numbers / results to only further justify what they've made their ideological minds up on already. It's kinda like leaving the fox in charge of the hen house, don't you think? I mean just the way the admin cooked the ObamaCare numbers, right? A track record of doing so already established, in my view. Needs independent review, analysis and vetting.

It will be just another CBO that is wrong every single time. Doing math is hard for government, you know. Apparently lawyers are really bad at math. Who knew?
 
:lol: To be fair the EPA did this to themselves by blatantly ignoring that the health of industry is part of their job.

Agreed. The same could be said of Congress, it seems to me, but no one is holding them accountable.
 
It will be just another CBO that is wrong every single time. Doing math is hard for government, you know. Apparently lawyers are really bad at math. Who knew?

Agreed, and hence my call for independent and more realistic analysis and vetting of those results before they are implemented in more poorly thought out and written regulations (seems that lawyers aren't good at writing laws either! :doh).
 
I noticed that the Supreme Court didn't consider the cost of all the regulations they must comply to in the ruling. I think if they are really going to go with the cost angle they have to consider the cost of all regulations.

Yeah. In some larger businesses, there are thousands working devoted entirely to regulatory compliance. Since I've done it, I can't tell you how exciting it is to spend all day reading the Federal Register without crying.
 
Agreed, and hence my call for independent and more realistic analysis and vetting of those results before they are implemented in more poorly thought out and written regulations (seems that lawyers aren't good at writing laws either! :doh).

and yet, most of our laws are written by lawyers. English majors would do a better job, as they know how to write in English.
 
Agreed. The same could be said of Congress, it seems to me, but no one is holding them accountable.

Honest news media fulfilling your part of your social contract (speaking truth to power and holding politicians accountable)!
Where forth art thou?
 
Back
Top Bottom