It was 6 - 2 because Samuel Alito recused himself. The dissenters were Thomas and Scalia. That means that Roberts went in for this. He's turning into quite the disappointment.The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate emissions produced by coal-fired power plants in order to protect downwind states from deleterious effects of pollution.The 6-2 ruling in the latest battle of what has been termed the “War on Coal” is a big victory for the Obama administration and environmental groups who maintain burning coal represents a health risk to those with respiratory problems. It also indicates the nation’s highest court is likely to side with the EPA on other issues related to their regulatory powers.
Saturday, May 3, 2014
SCOTUS gets one real, real wrong
Reading the Clean Air Act in the most loosey-goosey way possible:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You must mean that you personally do not agree with the SCOTUS decision. Just what does your ilk plan to do about SCOTUS? Please enlighten me about what other mechanism to resolve disputes which always have and will always continue to occur. In spades with your ilk breathing down everybody's necks who don't see it your way. I know, I know, you are the preemptors on a mission from, from, could it be, could it be, the God we are one nation under.
ReplyDeleteIn a real America, justices would be vetted by a principled Congress to make sure they didn't buy any of that progressive Luis Brandeis - Oliver Wendell Holmes garbage.
ReplyDeleteThe administrative power of bureaucratic agencies like the EPA is completely disrupting the clear lines of demarcation between, and the specifically enumerated powers of each of, the actual three branches of government.
ReplyDeleteYour comments demonstrate an astonishing disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of American citizens and legal residents.
ReplyDeleteIn what sense? I stand for what the Framers stood for. If government is to tell a private entity what to do or not to do, that is to be done by legislation, not by the regulations of an executive-branch entity.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, merely creating the EPA by an act of legislation and then letting its "experts" come up with the specifics of what, say, coal plants must do is not a Constitutional way to go about it.
ReplyDeleteNot according to the Supreme Court of the United States. Their decision is final, is it not? Now who wants to change the constitution? Well, maybe not change it, just complain about it when things don's swing your way.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court has gotten many things wrong throughout our history.
ReplyDelete