Supreme Court blocks Obama carbon emissions plan

[n2doc]

Source: Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama by blocking federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the centerpiece of his administration's strategy to combat climate change.

On a 5-4 vote, the court granted a request made by 27 states and various companies and business groups to block the administration's Clean Power Plan. The move means the regulations will not be in effect while litigation continues over whether their legality.

The brief order from the justices said that the regulations would be on hold until the legal challenge is completed. The court's five conservatives all voted to block the rule. The order noted that the four liberals would have denied the application.

A U.S. appeals court in Washington had turned away a similar request on Jan. 21.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-carbon-idUSKCN0VI2A0?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter

[RoccoR5955]

1. When the hell are these greedy bastards going to wake up?

Are they going to have to be totally under water before they understand that we MUST do something to stop our addiction to carbon?
How much do you want to bet that the Koch Bastard Brothers are behind this?

[kelly1mm]

10. What does your comment have to do with the legality of the executive branch

issuing regulations that are (allegedly) in excess of the power granted to the regulators by the legislative branch? The executive branch does not have power to do whatever it thinks is correct (and a good thing too - think what Cheney could have done ....)

The legal case has nothing to do with whether this is a good policy or not.

[RoccoR5955]

12. Oh?

After what Bush, and a lot of them have done? NOW you complain?
I think that the executive branch should have the power to make declarations to avert apparent disasters!
The disaster in this case is our environment. Earth is still our only home.

[kelly1mm]

13. No, this is not the first time I have complained about executive branch overreach. I think MANY

of our problems as a country are because of the rise of the unitary executive theory of governance under both parties.

If you want the executive branch to have the power to make declarations to avert apparent disasters then you need to change the constitution. That and hope that future presidents don't think that allowing something you like is, in their opinion alone, an apparent disaster.

[mpcamb]

15. Are you waiting for Congress to come up with a 'good policy?'

[kelly1mm]

16. Not really 'good' policy per se. We have a constituitional system that set forth that the

legislative branch makes policy (broadly), not the executive branch. If that is unworkable or in need of change (and it certainly could be) then there is a process to change the constitution or even have a new constitutional convention. Feel free to advocate for either of those options.

But don't be surprised when their is blowback when you as the executive branch (not R or D specific) take is upon yourself to usurp the legislative branch functions because you think it is a 'good policy'.

[RoccoR5955]

19. Okay, well here's my real peeve

The Supremes Court may have destroyed the climate deal that was so difficult to work out.
Here's an article: http://www.wired.com/2016/02/the-supreme-court-may-have-nuked-the-paris-climate-deal/
I think that some things should be decided on by the president. The affects of WE THE PEOPLE, in the future, due to climate change is a major one of them. When we have idiots in Congress who deny that climate change exists (and the Earth is flat), it becomes impossible for the legislative body to come to a logical solution to this. The science is in. If Congress can't make the correct decision based on science, than the President should be able to step in and do the job. Let's just say that he is enforcing the scientific law.

[Yo_Mama]

21. Well, the problem is that if the President can make such a policy, he can also unmake

such a policy.

It's always a fake and a chimera.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. More: states were supposed to submit their carbon cutting plans by this September

Supreme shock: Has US court holed Paris climate deal?

This is bad news for the Plan on two counts.

It is due to start in 2022, but states were supposed to submit their carbon cutting plans by this September.

That deadline will now be missed as this legal issue is not likely to be resolved before the end of next year.

The second and more important point from Mr Obama's perspective is that by granting the stay, the Supreme Court is hinting strongly it has issues with the whole Plan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35541323

[kelly1mm]

23. What if President Trump (hey it COULD happen, in theory) has the same power? If he thinks

say, illegal immigration, is a major concern and so takes unilateractions not approved by the legislature. Or thinks the ACA is a major concern and since the legislature won't change it to his liking he just shuts it down unilaterally?

Everybody loves when the policies being implemented outside the established process are the ones they support. Not so much when they are not.

So, I am back to my original statement - the legal fight is not about climate change but rather about executive power.

[RoccoR5955]

24. Immigration is not a pending emergency

Saving Planet Earth IS!
Remember Earth is STILL our only home.
This IS about climate change. It is about enforcing a rule put into effect by the EPA, that was ruled constitutional. The Supremes ruled that the EPA could enforce restrictions in carbon dioxide.
Sorry, but your straw man argument holds no water with me.

[kelly1mm]

25. who says that immigration is not a pending emergency? You? Trump thinks it is

and if you allow the executive branch unilateral power in what they themselves think is an emergency then what he thinks is what matters (until the next president changes it)

The Supremes ruled for a stay while they consider if the EPA as part of the executive branch overstepped the rule making authority granted to it by congress.

I do not believe we will come to an agreement on this, and that is cool. You seem to believe that climate change is such a pressing issue that you are willing to give the executive branch whatever power necessary to deal with it. in other words you seem to be focusing on what you consider good policy.

I am focused on the process.

That is also what the SC is focusing on.

[RoccoR5955]

26. Donald tRump is a jerk!

This may have a little to do with the process, and as the process goes, the Supreme Court has ALREADY RULED that the EPA can declare carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas. As they are charged with controlling greenhouse gasses, it is within their wheelhouse to set guidelines for the control of them. Again, this is ALREADY been decided by the Supreme Court. It is a matter of minutia that the Koch Brothers and other oil and coal barons are fighting against here.

Besides immigration pales, in comparison the urgency needed to keep the Earth a liveable planet for the Human Race. If we have no planet to live in, immigration will not matter one bit.

[kelly1mm]

30. Trump is a jerk and imigration does pale in comparison (see we did agree!) to both of us.

But if the executive gets to decide then it is what the executive thinks is correct that matters, not what either of us thinks, what scientists think or what the objective truth is. That is my only point.

[Kilgore]

28. Nice to see a comment based on the rule of law.....

and now raw emotion.

Well Done!!

[forest444]

14. Oh, they know only too well.

That's why they're spending billions on contingency plans (many of them secret). The very image of bad faith - and yes, Scaliar and Uncle Thomas are making off like bandits.

[Yo_Mama]

20. It's a powers case. Did the Executive exceed its authority?

Powers cases have NOTHING to do with good public policy, but rather with preserving the structure of the government so as to preserve representational democracy.

[jtuck004]

2. Ok, well, that's all really nice. But this is killing us. So now what? n/t

[villager]

3. These crazy fuckers mean to kill us all. Since the system can't really be "redeemed" at this point

...one wonders if the only hope for the planet is that the U.S. falls apart sooner, rather than later?

[lamp_shade]

4. I think a "hold" was expected... until the legal challenge is completed.

[former9thward]

5. No it was not expected.

In order to get the hold a majority of the court had to be convinced by rule opponents that there would be a "fair prospect" that the court would overturn the rule when the case made it to them.

[valerief]

6. Fuckin' activist justices!!!! nt

[24601]

11. Exactly the opposite. If the provisions had been been passed by Congress and signed into law by the

President, they would have been upheld 9-0.

The ruling has nothing to do with whether it's a good idea or not and is limited to whether it's Constitutional for the President to make the rules unilaterally. It's precisely what the Supreme Court is supposed to address.

[mdbl]

7. The word Supreme doesn't come to mind when they make these stupid decisions

[Grown2Hate]

8. If this doesn't underscore the need for a Democrat to win the White House in 2016,

I don't know what does. I'll unite behind whomever gets the nomination to make sure the bastards cannot FURTHER stack the bench against our best interests.

[scottie55]

9. The Fascist 5

Are up to no good again.....

[Major Hogwash]

17. "The court's five conservatives all voted to block the rule."

The Roberts Court will go down in history as one of the most biased Supreme Courts ever.

[Democat]

18. Sanders or Clinton, a Democrat needs to select the next Supreme Court Justice

Hopefully Democrats can come together after the primary and elect whoever is nominated.

[Zambero]

27. This is why the GOP must not be allowed to re-occupy the White House

Another 2 or 3 lifetime Supreme Court appointees by the likes of a Trump or Cruz and our goose (future viability as a species among others) will be fully and irreversibly cooked!

[Dont call me Shirley]

29. Activist judges: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy

[Odin2005]

31. Fuck!

[truthisfreedom]

32. I have adjudicated time and time again here

At DU and I've never been evil and I've never gotten a heart.