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

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: 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 ]

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