NM list PING! Click on the flag to go to the Free Republic New Mexico message page.
(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
Posted on 02/07/2011 11:48:48 AM PST by EBH
Separation of Powers Issue? The Governor’s the master in this, not the court.
NM court orders publication of environmental rules (state Supreme Court)
The New Mexican article headline and story explain it best. In New Mexico, the legislature allows regulatory boards to adopt regulations subject to statutory limitations. Richardson's environmentalist-controlled environmental regulatory board adopted draconian air quality rules on carbon emissions just before he left office. The rules were scheduled to be published and become effective after Martinez took office. She ordered a delay in publication until the rules were reviewed by the new administration. The court said she couldn't do that -- the rules were adopted legally and the process (publication) could not be stopped by her.
What she did do was to fire four of the five members of the entire regulatory board and appoint new ones. They can hold hearings and undo what Richardson did. Also, there are bills in the legislature which would accomplish the same thing.
Here is the New Mexican's summary of where things stand:
While Wednesday's decision settles whether the regulations will be published, the rules' fate remains uncertain. Legislators have introduced bills in the 60-day session under way that would either roll back the regulations or change the way such rules are adopted. And utilities, industry groups and others intend to challenge the rules before the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
NM list PING! Click on the flag to go to the Free Republic New Mexico message page.
(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
We need that more than ever.
Let the judge enforce it.
thanks for posting that . I was looking for a factual article rather than a econutter press release.
Has no one else heard of Rose Bird?
You have it almost right. The rules were adopted legally in the last days of the Richardson administration by a regulatory board whose members were appointed by Richardson. She can't overturn that decision but she can and did fire the board members and replaced them with those who hopefully will not rely on junk science as a basis for rules that do nothing but penalize private business. See my response at #22.
Interestingly enough, the environmental board did not consider climate science in adopting the regulations but instead looked on it as being "settled science" as do the feds. They sided with the enviros who said all would be rosy and green when these were adopted. The locals (away from Santa Fe) had a different take when public hearings were held in their towns last summer. They were packed with citizens who took exception to the rosy scenarios and said the regulations would cost jobs, not create them.
I think you're missing the point that it's the publishing of the rules, not the rules themselves, that puts them into effect. Unless and until the rules get published, the people aren't bound by them.
Thanks for the info. In my search, it seems most news about this was by environuts gloating over the ruling.
I say environuts because I do consider myself to be an environmentalist. I need something to differentiate true care for the environment and our place in it from socialist totalitarianism operating under the guise of environmentalism.
I’m surprised that the California Supreme Court did not declare that 1986 vote to remove Chief Justice Bird as unconstitutional!
After California District Federal Judge did just that — declare a Judicial Dictatorship — with his ruling that Prop 8 — a change to the STATE’s Constitution was illegal. That Fiat-Dictatorship of a ruling has been since stayed by the Ninth, pending an appeal hearing.
Thanks for the clarification. I thought such rules were NOT binding until officially published. How much leeway does a Chief Administrator have in delaying the publication of rules, and is that executive discretion reviewable?
Okay — for those of us who do NOT know the details — and they ARE important:
Were the “rules” the Governor tried to stop FEDERAL or STATE in origin?
Were they created by an EXECUTIVE branch agency, or by LEGISLATIVE mandate?
Did the Governor merely stop publication of the laws details, or were the actual enactment of the laws delayed by her actions?
Did the State Supreme Court usurp their authority by involving themselves in an executive branch decision in the State of New Mexico, or did they jump in the middle of an Executive vs. Legislative turf war, or did they insert themselves between the NM Governor and an out of control Federal Beauracracy?
All of these questions seem to be relevant.
An agency has discretion as to when it submits rules for publication. In this case the board made final adoption in early December (it voted adoption on election day in November) and then the support agency (the state environment department) does the actual formalization (dots the i's, crosses the t's, etc.) before submittal to the state records center for publication.
From the court decision:
Chief Justice Charles Daniels said the law is clear that the records administrator has a duty to publish in a timely manner any rules filed with the records center. He said that duty must be fulfilled regardless of requests made by the executive branch or any disputes among the parties over the general merits of the rules.
See #22, #28 and #36.
re your explanation of the court decision
Thanks for the clarity.
If she can fire ‘em and reload, then NM will be back in business.
I gotta tell you I about had an infarction when I read the original posting. Part of it was the e-mail a friend of mine showed me from her mother who lives in NM. The mother was griping about the cold & power outages and, being a great blindered lefty, BLAMING HER COLD CONDO IN TAOS ON GOVERNOR SUSANA-—who has been in power, what, all of a month...sheesh...
Anyway again thanks for clearing things up.
“...I say environuts because I do consider myself to be an environmentalist. I need something to differentiate true care for the environment and our place in it from socialist totalitarianism operating under the guise of environmentalism...”
-
I work in environmental regulatory compliance,
and I call myself a conservationist; not an environmentalist.
More than a few of us do that. We are constantly at odds with some at the agencies who have a university "education" in environmental science but know very little about real world practicalities and cause and effect on business and jobs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
