What's new
By:
Filters

Supreme Court allows Biden EPA emission rule to proceed

Norm

Norm

Newb
Joined
May 21, 2020
Member Number
904
Messages
846
Loc
Cold North
Not a win, I'm kind of surprised at the SCOTUS ruling

"The Supreme Court has declined to intervene on a request from numerous states and industry groups to temporarily block a set of the Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations aimed at reducing carbon pollution from coal- and gas-fired power plants.

In a brief statement on Wednesday, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch wrote that since the challengers do not have to begin compliance work until June, the involved parties are unlikely to suffer irreparable harm before the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., decides the merits of the case.

"So this Court understandably denies the stay applications for now," Kavanaugh and Gorsuch wrote.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have granted the request from the states and groups. Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative, recused himself."



Supreme Court allows Biden EPA emission rule to proceed
 
Sceep said:
Sweet. Maybe they will move on to the 80% lowers case now. Tired of waiting for my chit. :flipoff:

Oh and FUCK THE EPA! :flipoff:
Click to expand...
Vanderstock was already heard and based on the questioning by the Justices, its going to come down to probably a single Justice on whether the ATF will triumph or not.
 
Norm said:
Not a win, I'm kind of surprised at the SCOTUS ruling

"The Supreme Court has declined to intervene on a request from numerous states and industry groups to temporarily block a set of the Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations aimed at reducing carbon pollution from coal- and gas-fired power plants.

In a brief statement on Wednesday, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch wrote that since the challengers do not have to begin compliance work until June, the involved parties are unlikely to suffer irreparable harm before the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., decides the merits of the case.

"So this Court understandably denies the stay applications for now," Kavanaugh and Gorsuch wrote.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have granted the request from the states and groups. Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative, recused himself."



Supreme Court allows Biden EPA emission rule to proceed
Click to expand...
This type of denial is basically standard practice for SCOTUS. If the case is still in a lower court they almost always won't touch it. Now, for the haters out there, this DOES NOT mean I like that or agree with the policy, I just pointed out that it's standard practice for SCOTUS.
 
Motorcharge said:
I fucking hate when news sites do this. They intentionally click bait phrase it like it's a ruling. They didn't rule on the case and allow it, they declined to hear it before a lower court does which is fucking routine for the SCOTUS. It's exceedingly rare that they take up a case that's pending in a lower court.
Click to expand...
R

:flipoff2:
I do agree with your take on the article being misleading.
 
Motorcharge said:
I fucking hate when news sites do this. They intentionally click bait phrase it like it's a ruling. They didn't rule on the case and allow it, they declined to hear it before a lower court does which is fucking routine for the SCOTUS. It's exceedingly rare that they take up a case that's pending in a lower court.
Click to expand...

I was a injunction until the lower court rules on the case. I think a injunction would have been reasonable in this case.
 
Norm said:
I was a injunction until the lower court rules on the case. I think a injunction would have been reasonable in this case.
Click to expand...
This is the SCOTUS though, not an appellate court. They don't have the luxury of just issuing an injunction, they have to weigh the ramifications of their actions and issuing an injunction before a lower court has a chance to rule after the overturning of the Chevron standard looks like political bias. There's no harm in allowing the lower court case to proceed since it's scheduled before these regulations go into effect.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
"The EPA finalized a new rule". I wonder how long this will last given the new "Chevron Deference" ruling by SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
About 1 day past the inauguration.

Wonder if anybody will actually pay the tax or just wait to see what happens.
 
Given that the provision is part of the "Inflation Reduction Act" legislation passed by Congress, I don't think the new Chevron interpretation applies.
 
ApeEater said:
Given that the provision is part of the "Inflation Reduction Act" legislation passed by Congress, I don't think the new Chevron interpretation applies.
Click to expand...
It depends on how its worded. If it's not explicitly stated as how much the fine is, it's probably not valid.

It's probably very vague which goes against Chevron.
 
Void_of_Light said:
It depends on how its worded. If it's not explicitly stated as how much the fine is, it's probably not valid.

It's probably very vague which goes against Chevron.
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer, but that's not how I'd expect that to be interpreted.

If the EPA just decided to add a fine for methane emissions based on a loosely worded mandate "to clean the air," then I'd agree with your interpretation. If the EPA is following a law from Congress that states, "You will impose fines for exceeding methane emission targets," then the courts will allow the agency discretion on the fine amount.
 
Great example of pain via a tax penalty being passed to the consumer to fuel a perceived necessary change, just like people chirp about in evrey tarrif thread.

:mad3:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh