Supreme Court indicates it will dismiss major climate-change case

Sportutegirl's headline: Three USSC Chicks favor EPA.
Roberts appears to question EPA's side, so I'll wait for the verdict.

I don't think it is quite that simple. I think the three bimbos have accidentally stumbled onto the right side of the issue even if not for the right reason. Several liberal states brought the suit, trying to get the district courts to impose emissions regulations on the utility companies in question by fiat. The suit should be thrown out based on the simple fact that the courts should not be directing regulation policies like that -- regardless of whether or not the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses". So while the three bimbos' primary reason seems to be that the EPA is the authority here rather than the courts, they are still getting to the right answer even if their reasons are flawed. (This may be one of the few times when it is better to just state the answer without "showing your work" in their case.)

Roberts appears more focused on the really core issue that the courts should not be creating policy or issuing regulations on behalf of the states against the utility companies.

“This case rests on the longstanding fundamental authority of the states to protect their land, their natural resources and their citizens from air pollution emitted in other States,” Underwood said.

Based on that logic, anytime a criminal released from some liberal panty-waste state like New York or Massachussetts commits a crime in another state, the victim state should sue the hell out of the soft-on-crime state for allowing their criminals to go inflict their crime on the other states.

Please check my posts # 11 and # 15. Building the largest nuclear reactor in the world on top of one of the most unstable areas in the world is really smart, eh____ ?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2705739/posts?page=15#15

I call it the event horizon of the black hole of communism/islamo-fascism.

The tree of liberty occasionally needs to be watered wiyj the blood of tyrants!

Oh where do we start?

Caddis the Younger

The Supreme Court thought about it for a while and decided to punt.

When given a really tough, highly politicized case, that is what the Supreme Court has generally done.

There have been exceptions. I think of the Dred Scott case where the Court "decided to decide" a case that was political and to "settle" the political issue.

That decision lead directly to the Civil War.

Such is our system, be it for good or bad. Maybe when AEP and TVA and the others have no choice but to shut down those coal-fired plants and people lose their jobs and freeze in the dark, there will be a run on the EPA.

Overreaching bureaucrats beware. It could happen to you and it won't be pretty.

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.