[SierraWasp]

"The challenge to the administration's revisions was initiated by state attorneys general."

No doubt led by CA's Lockear!!! (deliberately mis-spelled!)

[SierraWasp]

Here's a Christmas Present for our fearless leader!!!

Ping to the power pingers.

[RandallFlagg]

WTF?!?!

This tyrranical judiciary needs to be put down!

[bolobaby]

I'm guessing the 9th circuit... who's with me on that one?

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[dighton]

Three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C.

[Jean S]

More from the AP:

       www.sfgate.com        Return to regular view

AP NewsBreak: Appeals court blocks Bush administration clean air changes
JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

URL: sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/12/24/national1317EST0580.DTL

(12-24) 10:17 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked new Bush administration changes to the Clean Air Act from going into effect the next day, in a challenge from state attorneys general and cities that argued they would harm the environment and public health.

The Environmental Protection Agency rule would have made it easier for utilities, refineries and other industrial facilities to make repairs in the name of "routine maintenance" without installing additional pollution controls.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order that blocks the rules from going into effect until the legal challenge from the states and cities is heard, a process likely to last months.

The court's decision blocks at least temporarily one of the Bush administration's major environmental decisions. The court's justices said the challengers "demonstrated the irreparable harm and likelihood of success" of their case, which are required to stop the rule from taking effect.

EPA proposed the rule in December, the then-acting administrator signed it in August and it was made final in October. It was due to have gone into effect this week.

Bringing suit were attorneys general for 12 states -- Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin -- and legal officers for New York City, Washington, San Francisco, New Haven and a host of other cities in Connecticut.

©2003 Associated Press  

[ridesthemiles]

No doubt led by CA's Lockear!!! (deliberately mis-spelled!)

I doubt this from Calif and Lock-ear. This federal court is in Chicago, and I think that is a different jurisdiction from Calif.

[freekitty]

I see the Clintoons were busy little bees making sure their judges were set up before they left.

Will someone please take them off the stage so we can put them in jail where justice will finally be done?

[Steve_Seattle]

"irreparable harm"

The plaintiffs must have been lying, because it's hard to see how a policy which would reduce toxic emmissions by 70% over 15 years is doing irreparable harm.

[Hunble]

It is finally time that the Judicial branch of the U.S. Government becomes balanced with the other two branches.

There if a formal and authorized method of implementing changes withing the government. It is called a Constitutional Amendment.

The Executive branch is responsible for the enforcement of the laws. Perhaps it is time that the Executive branch begins to ignore and refuse to implement Judicial branch rulings that are not clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

Perhaps, after the land-slide Republican election results of 2004, we will finally see some changes.

[hattend]

More:
===
Court Blocks Changes to Clean Air Act
47 minutes ago Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked new Bush administration changes to the Clean Air Act from going into effect, in a challenge from state attorneys general and cities that argued they would harm the environment and public health.

The Environmental Protection Agency rule would have made it easier for utilities, refineries and other industrial facilities to make repairs in the name of routine maintenance without installing additional pollution controls.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order that blocks the rules from going into effect until the legal challenge from the states and cities is heard, a process likely to last months.

The court's decision stops, at least temporarily, one of the Bush administration's major environmental decisions. The court's justices said the challengers "demonstrated the irreparable harm and likelihood of success" of their case, which are required to stop the rule from taking effect.

EPA proposed the rule a year ago December, the then-acting administrator signed it in August and it was made final in October. It was due to have gone into effect this week.

Bringing suit were attorneys general for 12 states — Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin — and legal officers for New York City, Washington, San Francisco, New Haven and a host of other cities in Connecticut.

Cynthia Bergman, a spokeswoman for EPA, declined to provide any initial comment, saying the agency had not yet had a chance to review the ruling.

EPA has maintained that it does not believe the rule will result in significant changes in emissions, and that it will preserve the public health protections required under law.

Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a group of power companies, called the ruling "a setback for energy efficiency and environmental protection," but expressed confidence the rule would eventually be upheld.

"The rule was based upon a substantial agency record with analysis, public hearings and thousands of rulemaking comments," he said. "We expect the rule will soon be back on course."

Environmental and health groups, including Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Association, also challenged the rule in the appeals court.

They argued EPA's maintenance rule violates the Clean Air Act by letting power plants and other industries increase pollution significantly without adopting control measures, and public harm would result.

"This is a great gift to the American people and a lump of coal to the Bush administration and its polluter friends," John Walke, NRDC's clean air director. "The court agreed this rule would cause great harm to the public that could not be undone, and it's likely the rule will be struck down for running afoul of the Clean Air Act."

Tom Reilly, the Massachusetts attorney general, also spoke in terms of holiday gifts, saying the court had "forced EPA to take back its early Christmas present to the coal-fired power plants in the Midwest."

Eliot Spitzer, New York's attorney general, called it "a major decision."

"When it comes to environmental policy, this court decision is as big a success as we've had in stopping the Bush administration from undercutting the Clean Air Act," he said.

But the judges also said they found no reason to revisit an earlier decision not to block other of the EPA's changes to the Clean Air Act that were made final in December 2002.

Those new rules had already begun to go into effect in some states earlier this year, giving coal-fired power plants and other industrial facilities more flexibility in calculating their pollution levels.

[The Raven]

If the darn courts can't figure out what Congress intended...then simply send it back to Congress......DON'T MAKE NEW LAW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[madison10]

So we elected the courts to be "president?" What a mess.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

The court has NO constitutional authority to make this decision!Bush should just do it anyway and to hel* with the courts.

[Flyer]

Whatever happened to "Stroke of the pen; law of the land"?