Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Climate Case Looks at EPA's Power (global warming)
NBC News ^ | 2/22/14

Posted on 02/23/2014 12:04:38 PM PST by Libloather

Industry groups and Republican-led states are heading an attack at the Supreme Court against the Obama administration's sole means of trying to limit power-plant and factory emissions of gases blamed for global warming.

As President Barack Obama pledges to act on environmental and other matters when Congress doesn't, or won't, opponents of regulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases cast the rule as a power grab of historic proportions.

The court is hearing arguments Monday about a small but important piece of the Environmental Protection Agency's plans to cut the emissions — a requirement that companies expanding industrial facilities or building new ones that would increase overall pollution must also evaluate ways to reduce the carbon they release.

(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; court; epa; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax
Maybe they can slow down the hoax.
1 posted on 02/23/2014 12:04:39 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Can I make an observation?

We’re told by the liberals that CO2 is a pollutant, etc.

Well, each of us produces CO2 every time we exhale.

What are the implications for us having to reduce our carbon footprint as individuals? We’re all CO2 factories.


2 posted on 02/23/2014 12:07:57 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego (TH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Some CO2 factories are better than others.


3 posted on 02/23/2014 12:12:33 PM PST by Hoosier-Daddy ( "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of ingtheir political choices.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

When the EPA was set up during the Nixon administration, wasn’t the House supposed to have oversight, not the executive branch?


4 posted on 02/23/2014 12:13:31 PM PST by Zuben Elgenubi (NOPe to GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Um, I’m kinda thinkin’ the libs, for the good of mankind which they care so deeply about, should volunteer to, uh, “cease” creating this noxious gas. After all, it would be for the children.


5 posted on 02/23/2014 12:13:37 PM PST by rktman (Under my plan(scheme),unemployment will necessarily skyrocket! Despite the % dropping. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Since the SC already ruled that CO2 could be regulated I don’t see how they rule against the EPA.


6 posted on 02/23/2014 12:15:01 PM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
When they accept the lies as 'true science'
The Science becomes the lie !!
It is hard to argue against a monotonously repeated lie !
IE : the Hawaiin birth Certificate
7 posted on 02/23/2014 12:15:12 PM PST by Tilted Irish Kilt (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi

I believe the regime is taking the approach that we’ll do what we want, until some court decision (maybe) slows us down.


8 posted on 02/23/2014 12:16:22 PM PST by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

At 317 million, we should all be wearing some sort of mask to filter our exhaled breath. Don’t forget that EPA banned asthma inhalers for the few million folks who used them a few times per day.


9 posted on 02/23/2014 12:17:30 PM PST by umgud (2A can't survive dem majorities)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Democrats don’t fart, and if they do, it doesn’t stink..

That’s why they’re so uptight about everything


10 posted on 02/23/2014 12:19:07 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
"We're told by the liberals that CO2 is a pollutant"

No, the Supreme Ct, in the 2007 case said that CO2 was a pollutant.

As for what you exhale, the issue here is about EPA regulating stationary sources(power plant, steel mill, cement kiln) at about 100,000 tons per year.

11 posted on 02/23/2014 12:30:05 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I sat my kids down and explained that carbon is not a poison, it is in stars and space and a building block of life. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant - without it, plants will die. So shut up on global warming and carbon pollution.


12 posted on 02/23/2014 12:35:45 PM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: saganite
"I don't see how they can rule against the EPA"

The argument is that SCOTUS specifically mentioned auto tailpipes(a mobil source), but SCOTUS didn't mention stationary sources.

EPA says CO2 is CO2, whether it comes out of a tailpipe or power plant exhaust stack. And, SCOTUS didn't specifically exclude stationary sources in their 2007 decision.

13 posted on 02/23/2014 12:38:26 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi

“When the EPA was set up during the Nixon administration, wasn’t the House supposed to have oversight, not the executive branch?”

The RINO expansion of G’ment tyranny goes back a few years, generations even. Teddy Roosevelt come to mind, he may or may not be one of the first RINOs


14 posted on 02/23/2014 12:45:35 PM PST by DanZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

I don’t see how they can differentiate between the two since they’ve already accepted that CO2 is a pollution source from whatever source but we shall see.


15 posted on 02/23/2014 12:53:03 PM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: saganite
I agree with you. I'm just telling you the argument the plaintiffs are using. The DC Court of Appeals has already ruled for the EPA on this and a couple of other issues.

Of all 3 issues in which the DC Ct ruled for EPA, this is the only one that SCOTUS agreed to hear on appeal. They rejected the other 2.

16 posted on 02/23/2014 1:04:22 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Libloather; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; alrea; ...
Sometime after the arguments are heard:

Chief Justice Roberts: It seems to me that only Congress has the power to do this.
Justice Ginsburg: Remember, I have copies of those adoption papers in a secure location.
Chief Justice Roberts: Oh, well, maybe the administration is acting within the law . . .

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

NOAA: Global high temps despite cold snap

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

17 posted on 02/23/2014 1:05:05 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Colorado: the Maryland of the Mountain West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Then there is beer and cokes and Jack Black and wine.

All are emitters of CO2

Before turning off the a/c or the lights perhaps we should outlaw all carbonated and fermented beverages


18 posted on 02/23/2014 1:11:33 PM PST by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... History is a process, not an event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

OK!! Everybody pay attention!

Lesson for today:

1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.

2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.

3. The earth is one of the sun’s planets.

4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.

5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.

Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?


19 posted on 02/23/2014 1:16:40 PM PST by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego; All

The implications are simple and horrifying, indeed the very reason why the left so loves AGW “science.” Every activity by every animal in the world, including all humans, involves and requires the use and/or the movement of carbon and the concomitant emission of carbon dioxide. Hence, those who control human use of carbon control every human activity and have an absolute license to adopt worldwide, unappealable central planning, a communist’s absolute perpetual wet dream since the days of Marx. Absolute power is what matters to them. The deaths of tens of millions of people that inevitably accompany central planning, as under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, matter not a bit to communists like the Mahdi and Moochelle, both of whom bitterly hate America and Americans.


20 posted on 02/23/2014 1:26:42 PM PST by libstripper (Asv)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
What are the implications for us having to reduce our carbon footprint as individuals? We’re all CO2 factories.

That's where our real solution is. If we can just cut our population in half, like rid ourselves of those stupid Democrats, we can cut our generation of the CO2 in half and solve a lot of other problems at the same time.

21 posted on 02/23/2014 1:49:38 PM PST by chopperman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tbw2
I sat my kids down and explained that carbon is not a poison

Look for the EPA to make that a hate crime before it's over.

22 posted on 02/23/2014 1:52:34 PM PST by Hardastarboard (The question of our age is whether a majority of Americans can and will vote us all into slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin; saganite

The Supreme Court considered nine petitions seeking review of the appeals court’s decision on many grounds, and it accepted six of them. But it limited the issue it would consider to whether the agency “permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouses gases.” Among the cases accepted for review was Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 12-1146.

The question was narrow, and it appeared spurred by Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent. Environmental groups said they were pleased that the court had not questioned the agency’s finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger, or that it can regulate tailpipe emissions. They added that the agency has other tools to regulate stationary sources should it lose in the pending case.

From this article:
As Obama Vows to Act on Climate Change, Justices Weigh His Approach

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/us/politics/in-emissions-case-supreme-court-to-consider-the-limits-of-obamas-authority.html

Earlier in the article:
When the full appeals court declined to rehear the case, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh dissented, and he identified the ground that would turn out to interest the Supreme Court. He said the agency had gone astray in revising the text of the statute.

“The task of dealing with global warming is urgent and important,” Judge Kavanaugh wrote, but it is primarily one for Congress to address. “The framers of the Constitution,” he added, “did not grant the executive branch the authority to set economic and social policy as it sees fit.”


23 posted on 02/23/2014 2:50:37 PM PST by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...

Thanks Libloather.


24 posted on 02/23/2014 5:51:39 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Whenifhow
Judge Kavanaugh says it is "urgent and important" and "primarily one for Congress to address"

Being that it is urgent and important, Congress not addressing the task is not an option. That was the basis of the original lawsuit.

And EPA certainly deferred to Congress when they said that they would "stay out of the way of Congress". EPA would set their regulatory thresholds at a higher level than the regulatory thresholds that Congress was considering.

In 2009 EPA set their regulatory thresholds at 25,000 tons per year because that was less stringent than the House Cap and Trade Bill.

The House bill fell through and in 2010 an attempt was made in the Senate to pass a narrower an less stringent bill and EPA revised their regulatory threshold up to the 75,000-100,000 tons to "stay out of the way of the Senate"

People need to understsnd that if and when Congress were to pass carbon legislation, it would be more stringent than what EPA is proposing.

25 posted on 02/24/2014 6:15:38 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

thanks for the input.
It will be interesting to see the ruling - perhaps in June.

I may have put too much emphasis in the following statement by Kavanaugh:
The framers of the Constitution,” he added, “did not grant the executive branch the authority to set economic and social policy as it sees fit.”


26 posted on 02/24/2014 7:05:38 AM PST by Whenifhow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson