Posted on 06/28/2018 8:50:58 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy could allow the nation’s highest court to change its mind on whether the Environmental Protection Agency has to fight climate change.
As a crucial swing vote, the Reagan appointee joined liberals in a landmark 5-4 decision in 2007 that the EPA is required to address climate change if its own scientists found that it posed a risk to public health. Two years later the agency made exactly that determination, issuing a scientific document known as the endangerment finding.
“We’re not going to get another Kennedy who’s going to play that moderating role,” says Deborah Sivas, a professor of environmental law at Stanford University. “Since it’s a matter of statutory interpretation instead of bedrock constitutional principles I could see folks try to set up a new challenge.”
The decision in Massachusetts v. EPA underpinned a series of Obama-era climate regulations that aimed at boosting vehicle fuel economy standards, cutting carbon dioxide emissions form power plants and reducing methane emissions in the oil and gas sector.
Many conservatives consider Massachusetts v. EPA and the endangerment finding an overreach. And the decision could easily find itself on the chopping block. In his dissent, then-Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Clean Air Act, the basis of Massachusetts v. EPA, does not mention climate change and instead targets more conventional air pollution, arguing the EPA is out of line to try to regulate greenhouse gases.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
And we’re all gonna die! Women and children hit hardest.
That scare tactic has no power any more.... you can only tell everyone they are going to die unless they do what you want for about a decade. When nothing happens people lose interest and it no longer evokes a response.
SRSLY?! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! These assclowns need their own show on (not)comedy central.
I guess they are trying to connect everything that happens in the world today to this bogus propaganda of theirs. They would be great in the Six Degrees of Separation game.
Just wait for the wailing when Buzzy kicks the bucket.
Good. All you dummies can make your short miserable lives even more miserable fighting the boogie climate man.
What a bunch of clowns and indoctrinated idiots.
It’s going to make it much, much harder to change my socks, too. Cutting up celery is going to take on a whole new meaning. Little puppies will be noticeably sadder and will wag their tails a bit less. Goldfish will commence to swim clockwise. The implications will be vast.
I have never seen such an incongruous and incomprehensible reaction to Kennedy’s retirement. What, is he not allowed to retire? There are protests blocking highways now. These people by and large can’t even spell “supreme” for the most part.
Call Ghostbusters.
The problem is about as real and legitimate as sliming poltergeists,
Hopefully, his pick will make it harder to kill babies and will end the forced acceptance of perversion.
Translation: Courts won't force us to waste money on phony threats.
Wouldn’t it be sweet if that happened this week?
Not that I wish death upon anyone, of course.
Anyone who wastes money on TIME subscriptions is a fool.
Hey liberals, without looking or counting on your fingers, name all the members of SCOTUS? I’ll give you a hint, there are nine of them.
Time is pathetic.
The earth has always had “climate change”. It has done quite well. These LIB lunatics can’t face facts...they can’t reason. Lunatics. I laugh at their worthless existence.
Democrats.
The earth has warmed and cooled over and over for 4.3 billion years.
TIME overlooked the obvious...
They have been at this in one form or another for over four decades (started in the 1970s). I remember climate scare stories from my high school days in the 70s.
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.