Go crawl back under your rock.
Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
LAW
Justices Turn Power-Plant Case Into a Charade
1 FEB 10, 2016 11:13 AM EST
By Noah Feldman
"There’s no mistaking the message of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to stay the Barack Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan regulation while it’s being challenged before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Before Tuesday, the court had never granted a regulatory stay in such circumstances, where the lower court hasn’t ruled and has itself declined to block the regulation while it’s considering the case. It’s understandable that environmental advocates are upset.
What’s less obvious is why the Supreme Court hasn’t done this sort of thing before, and what’s wrong with them doing it now, if anything. Evaluating the competing values at stake should help us understand whether the court got it right -- and whether we should expect more such stays in the future.
Confronting Coal
Start with the reasons a court, including the Supreme Court, ever issues a stay before a case is decided. The classic reason would be that one of the parties, usually the one seeking redress, would suffer some significant and irreparable harm while the case proceeded to its conclusion -- even if that party ultimately won. The core idea is that, if one side is likely to prevail anyway, it doesn’t make practical sense to subject it to serious harm while it waits for justice.
For that reason, a court considering a stay application ordinarily asks two questions: Is the requesting party likely to win? And will it suffer irreversible harm before it does?..."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-10/justices-turn-power-plant-case-into-a-charade
Justices Turn Power-Plant Case Into a Charade
1 FEB 10, 2016 11:13 AM EST
By Noah Feldman
"There’s no mistaking the message of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to stay the Barack Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan regulation while it’s being challenged before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Before Tuesday, the court had never granted a regulatory stay in such circumstances, where the lower court hasn’t ruled and has itself declined to block the regulation while it’s considering the case. It’s understandable that environmental advocates are upset.
What’s less obvious is why the Supreme Court hasn’t done this sort of thing before, and what’s wrong with them doing it now, if anything. Evaluating the competing values at stake should help us understand whether the court got it right -- and whether we should expect more such stays in the future.
Confronting Coal
Start with the reasons a court, including the Supreme Court, ever issues a stay before a case is decided. The classic reason would be that one of the parties, usually the one seeking redress, would suffer some significant and irreparable harm while the case proceeded to its conclusion -- even if that party ultimately won. The core idea is that, if one side is likely to prevail anyway, it doesn’t make practical sense to subject it to serious harm while it waits for justice.
For that reason, a court considering a stay application ordinarily asks two questions: Is the requesting party likely to win? And will it suffer irreversible harm before it does?..."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-10/justices-turn-power-plant-case-into-a-charade
Last edited:
This article is missing the clear point about Executive Overreach which is why the justices ruled against the program. These are the justices sending a clear message that laws need to be driven by the legislative branch of government, not just magically made up by Executive Order.
Obama's actions are on hold until legislation is properly passed and/or related court actions are sorted out. This is a perfectly reasonable decision, no matter how much the left wishes to whine about it.
It's only the moron GOP governors that are objecting to the regulations. Idiots. Fools. Morons.
The biggest problem with the world is conservatives. Whether they are in Syria or the US.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s surprise decision Tuesday to halt President Obama’s climate change regulation could weaken or even imperil the international global warming accord reached with great ceremony in Paris less than two months ago, climate diplomats said.
The Paris Agreement, the first accord to commit every country to combating climate change, had as a cornerstone Mr. Obama’s assurance that the United States would carry out strong, legally sound policies to significantly cut carbon emissions. Over history, the United States is the largest greenhouse gas polluter, although its annual emissions have been overtaken by China’s.
But in the capitals of India and China, two of the world’s largest polluters, climate change policy experts said the Supreme Court decision threw the American commitment into question, and possibly New Delhi’s and Beijing’s, too.
Continue reading the main story
“If the U.S. Supreme Court actually declares the coal power plant rules stillborn, the chances of nurturing trust between countries would all but vanish,” said Navroz K. Dubash, a senior fellow at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi. “This could be the proverbial string which causes Paris to unravel. The Paris agreement was a fragile and hard-fought consensus.”
The biggest problem with the world is conservatives. Whether they are in Syria or the US.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s surprise decision Tuesday to halt President Obama’s climate change regulation could weaken or even imperil the international global warming accord reached with great ceremony in Paris less than two months ago, climate diplomats said.
The Paris Agreement, the first accord to commit every country to combating climate change, had as a cornerstone Mr. Obama’s assurance that the United States would carry out strong, legally sound policies to significantly cut carbon emissions. Over history, the United States is the largest greenhouse gas polluter, although its annual emissions have been overtaken by China’s.
But in the capitals of India and China, two of the world’s largest polluters, climate change policy experts said the Supreme Court decision threw the American commitment into question, and possibly New Delhi’s and Beijing’s, too.
Continue reading the main story
“If the U.S. Supreme Court actually declares the coal power plant rules stillborn, the chances of nurturing trust between countries would all but vanish,” said Navroz K. Dubash, a senior fellow at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi. “This could be the proverbial string which causes Paris to unravel. The Paris agreement was a fragile and hard-fought consensus.”
Once again... your ignorance is absurd.
The Supreme Court ruled that the actions of the Obama administration must be stayed until a court decision regarding the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is reached.
The court action in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is brought by the State of West Virginia the and Peabody Energy Corporation. The governor of West Virginia is Democrat Earl Ray Tomblin. All the top executives of Peabody Energy Corporation are large Democratic donors.
Good for you. You found the one exception. By and large it is the dumb Republican governors that are against this, along with the coal companies. Maybe if the people that elected them were smarter. But the conservatives are not.
The states challenging the regulation, led mostly by Republicans and many with economies that rely on coal mining or coal-fired power, sued to stop what they called “the most far-reaching and burdensome rule the E.P.A. has ever forced onto the states.”
Eighteen states, mostly led by Democrats, opposed the request for a stay, saying they were “continuing to experience climate-change harms firsthand — including increased flooding, more severe storms, wildfires and droughts.” Those harms are “lasting and irreversible,” they said, and “any stay that results in further delay in emissions reductions would compound the harms.”
Eighteen states, mostly led by Democrats, opposed the request for a stay, saying they were “continuing to experience climate-change harms firsthand — including increased flooding, more severe storms, wildfires and droughts.” Those harms are “lasting and irreversible,” they said, and “any stay that results in further delay in emissions reductions would compound the harms.”
Yeah how dare those partisan surpemes make obama follow the law, he should be able to tax or regulate any business out of existence that he wants too, Screw all the ppl whose only employment relied on coal mines, screw all the people who depend on coal energy to live, Obama should just be able to change it all with the stroke of a pen cause hes doing all you idiots a favour, dont come bitching to us next year when west virginia is under a hundred feet of water!!!!?!?!?!??!?!!?!?!!! :MAD: