Supreme Court: EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions

[telemann.livejournal.com]

The Supreme Court issued a major ruling today on the EPA.

The court’s bifurcated opinion on one hand criticized the agency for trying to rewrite provisions of the Clean Air Act. But it nevertheless granted the Obama administration and environmentalists a big victory by agreeing that there are other ways for the EPA to reach its goal of regulating the gases that contribute to global warming.

“It bears mention that EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in announcing his opinion from the bench. “It sought to regulate sources that it said were responsible for 86 percent of all the greenhouse gases emitted from stationary sources nationwide. Under our holdings, EPA will be able to regulate sources responsible for 83 percent of those emissions.”

The decision concerns rules separate from the more comprehensive plan the EPA proposed earlier this month to cut carbon emissions from existing plants by as much as 30 percent over 15 years. And the ruling follows another decision this term that upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate air pollution that drifts across state borders, one of the administration’s top environmental goals. “Today is a good day for all supporters of clean air and public health and those concerned with creating a better environment for future generations,” the EPA said in a statement.

Source: Washington Post

Comments

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Thomas sits like a lump on the bench during every case. Everyone else does the heavy lifting, I don't know if he's incurious or sedated.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid Thomas may be a bit over his head.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

That's a popular view on the left but I've read good analysis that says very much otherwise. Thomas' judicial views are abhorrent to me, but he is very intelligent. What he has is a deep disdain for the theater of oral arguments. He believes that all the justices have pretty much made up their minds by the time they get to oral arguments (having read the briefs and other relevant materials before then) and that the oral argument is a bit of grandstanding that serves no purpose.

I won't assess that opinion as I am not qualified to do so -- even if he is correct, a public display is arguably good for the institution's relationship with the public and transparency as a concept.

But it cannot be said that Thomas does no work on the court -- he has no personal interest in showing his work for the public's benefit.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I'm no expert either, but as far as his judicial work
and philosophy goes, as far as I can see it, he only
takes the farthest right-wing, pro-corporate stance
that is possible; it's not like there is a lot of nuance
in what he does. But, yeah, maybe I am just biased.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

He just doesn't see the value in the questioning. No serious observer thinks he's incurious.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Many serious observers call him worse.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'd question their seriousness in that case.