Supreme Court Says Clean Air Trumps State’s Rights in Upholding EPA Rule

[babylonsister]

Last edited Tue Apr 29, 2014, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/04/29/supreme-court-clean-air-trumps-states-rights-upholding-epa-rule.html

Supreme Court Says Clean Air Trumps State’s Rights in Upholding EPA Rule
By: Keith Brekhus
Tuesday, April, 29th, 2014, 4:57 pm




In a victory for environmentalists and the Obama administration, the Supreme Court today ruled to uphold the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule set by Obama’s EPA in 2011. The rule requires 28 states to reduce power plant emissions that can negatively affect the air quality in neighboring states. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion in the case. The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of the rule with Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagen, Roberts and Kennedy joining Ginsburg in supporting the EPA mandate. Justices Anton Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the majority, arguing that the court’s decision ”feeds the uncontrolled growth of the administrative state at the expense of government by the people.”

While Thomas and Scalia may support the right of one state’s power plants to pollute downwind states with pollutants that cause respiratory illnesses and increase the risk of heart attacks for the downwind residents, the courts other justices disagreed. The Court majority determined that the EPA rule was a reasonable mandate consistent with the EPA’s mission, and that upholding the rule would improve the air quality for the American people.

The states of Texas, Ohio, and Michigan opposed the ruling. Some companies that operate coal-fired power plants including Xcel Energy and American Electric Power Company, also opposed the court’s decision. Environmentalists and proponents of clean air on the other hand were pleased with the outcome. Fred Krupp, speaking on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund, applauded the ruling, stating:

The Supreme Court’s decision means that our nation can take the necessary steps to ensure healthier and longer lives for the 240 million Americans at risk from power plant smokestack pollution near and far.

While this particular Supreme Court has not been friendly to proponents of the environment, today’s ruling is not only a victory for environmentalists, but it is a win for all Americans who want better health and cleaner air.

[Spazito]

1. Whoa, I wasn't expecting them to decide this way, it's a very pleasant surprise...

No surprise Thomas and Scalia took the position they did, they are disgustingly consistent. Roberts going with the majority surprises me, he still sucks though, really, really sucks.

[calimary]

18. I was surprised by this, too.

Considering THIS court, I would have bet they'd have ruled another way.

[Spazito]

20. Exactly, THIS court's rulings have been atrocious ....

and always in favor of the corporations at the expense of the public, states over the federal government. I notice Roberts didn't write the majority opinion, it was written by Justice Ginsberg.

I don't trust Roberts at all, I do think he does care about his legacy as Chief Justice so gives a few crumbs once in a while thinking it will balance his legacy, it won't, imo. His decisions on affirmative action, Citizens United, etc. will be his legacy and it will be infamous not lauded, imo.

[former9thward]

23. Roberts assigned it to Ginsberg.

The Chief Justice makes the assignments when he is in the majority.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Scalia and Thomas are no different than Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh

Kinda scary when you think about it:

”feeds the uncontrolled growth of the administrative state at the expense of government by the people.”

Are you kidding me?

[sheshe2]

3. +1

[Triana]

5. What Scalia and Thomas meant was that the ruling:

Doesn't well enough feed the uncontrolled growth of the corporate state at the expense of the people.

[nomorenomore08]

11. Because nothing says "government by the people" like a few CEO's deciding to foul everyone else's

breathing space, right?

[calimary]

19. "...at the expense of government by the people..." who want to breathe clean air, you mean?

How 'bout it, scalia and thomas? What about THAT category of people? Or are we now to be protecting the interests of people who claim the right to breathe in toxins? Maybe scalia and thomas are thinking of themselves. I can only imagine that breathing in lots of toxic chemicals throughout one's life might lead to one embracing the attitudes and policies they support.

[Gothmog]

4. Greg Abbott is a bad attorney

Greg is unable to win any big cases.

[etherealtruth]

6. Frankly, I am astounded that the supremes made this decision

I agree with it ... but I do not expect this court to do the right thing ... ever

[sheshe2]

7. K&R!

[Kath1]

8. Excellent

Somewhat surprising, but excellent all the same!

[adieu]

9. What happened with Alito's decision?

He's neither listed as with the majority nor the minority.

[rurallib]

16. he recused himself - didn't see why

[Cha]

10. "In a victory for environmentalists and the Obama administration, the Supreme Court today ruled to

uphold the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule set by Obama’s EPA in 2011"

And, for us! Mahalo babylonsistah!

[ancianita]

12. FINALLY.

[malaise]

13. Great news

Rec

[Heathen57]

14. Surprised, but glad

that those 6 justices decided to protect the rights of the surrounding states to protect their citizens over the right of one state to pollute.

What I can't get my head around is why they should need to rule on this in the first place. Have we come to the point to where greed is not an individual or corporate thing but it has spread, like an STD, into the state governments?

[ashling]

15. Too bad they don't care about the political air

[rurallib]

17. is this the first loss for corporations during the Roberts Court?

I know they haven't lost many.
Well they still own Tony and Clarence

[Gore1FL]

21. I've tried to Google the answer, but am having little luck--does anyone know...

What are the 28 states, and what do they have to do? This article names Texas, Ohio, and Michigan as opposing the ruling, so it's easy to guess 3.

The best I did was find an article that had more acronyms than real words or state names.

[former9thward]

25. The states:

The EPA had required 28 upwind states to slash ozone and fine particle emissions from power plants because of their downwind effects.

[Gore1FL]

26. Thanks!! n/t

[tclambert]

22. I'm surprised this Supreme Court didn't rule pollution is a form of free speech.

[Hekate]

24. What a nice surprise. Scalia and his sidekick, though, come through as expected.

I'll take a deep deep breath in gratitude to The Six who voted for my right to do so.

[freshwest]

27. Good OP. I was going to make one with this, but your source is much better:

http://www.newson6.com/story/25380226/supreme-court-revives-epa-rule-on-cross-state-pollution

[rickyhall]

28. Are Thomas & Scalia joined at hip or what?

[kelliekat44]

29. Maybe joined at another anatomical point?