Koch Brothers Take Loss As SCOTUS Rules The EPA Can Regulate Greenhouse Gasses

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iBlazed, Jun 25, 2014.

  1. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #1
    Surprised there wasn't already a thread for this pretty critical ruling. However, I'm not surprised Scalia was one of 2 dissenting justices.

    Link
     
  2. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #2
    Sweet, considering one of my biggest clients is a company that builds wind turbines.

    [​IMG]


    And clean air. Yum.
     
  3. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #3
    I think it's painfully obvious that Scalia doesn't rule on Constitutional merit, he's 100% political.
     
  4. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #4
    Did the Koch brothers initiate the case that started this?
     
  5. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #5
    I think he's delusional enough to believe that he does.

    And that just goes to show you how open to interpretation the Constitution is.
     
  6. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #6
    What?? Here's the judicial breakdown:

    So Scalia wrote the Court's Majority opinion, which is now the law. How do you figure he's a dissenter, Mr. Constitutional Scholar?
     
  7. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #7
    Ah I stand corrected. There were 2 separate cases apparently, one that was 5-4 and the second was 7-2. I thought he was dissenting on the 7-2, being the twatwaffle that he is. And the way the source article is written is a bit misleading. But I still stand behind him being a political justice in most cases though
     
  8. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #8
    I will claim that I was misled by others.

    Or maybe I saw it in the news.

    One of those excuses.
     
  9. localoid macrumors 68020

    localoid

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Location:
    America's Third World
    #9
    Reading this article I take it that this ruling will allow the administration to move ahead with implementation of the new (June 2nd) EPA regulations existing coal-fired power plants that will require cutting emissions by 30% (from 2005 levels) by the year 2030.

    If so, then I assume the plan of giving each a "target" to shoot for, based on the EPA’s estimate of the state’s ability to reduce emissions, is still on the table (graphic below).

    [​IMG]
    Graphic source
     
  10. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #10
    Misleading? You are being very generous. I suggest you look at other sources for interpretations of legal decisions, no left-wing wacko websites. The source you linked to omitted entirely a huge portion of the opinion where the entire court rips the EPA a new ******* for exceeding their authority granted by Congress and essentially making numbers up to fit a result desired by the Obama administration. Here are my favorite quotes:



     

Share This Page