Supreme Court rules EPA can overrule state in clean air case

SFGate.com ^ | 1/21/04 | Anne Gearan - AP

[Lurker]

They don't.

L

[justshutupandtakeit]

Perhaps you are unaware that the pollution problems of communist countries are FAR worse than capitalist ones. Apparently the "communist" line is "pollute all you want for the good of the proletariat." Thus, the pinko is YOU.

When has a capitalist nation destroyed an entire Sea? Only wealthy nations (i.e. capitalist ones) can afford a concern about the environment.

Gee, the thought of losing YOUR respect is more than I can bear. It will become even more so should I ever have the idea that you have ANY idea about which you speak. That is highly unlikely I will admit.

Since the Court has not declared either EPA or FWA to be unconstitutional it is not by definition. Even if you don't like them.

[justshutupandtakeit]

My comment should have read "No, states...." not "No states...." Sorry for the confusion.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Don't confuse him, he enjoys the paranoia.

[Leatherneck_MT]

LOL we don't HAVE a Constitution any more.

We need to start hanging judges by the bushelfull, and I mean NOW.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Presumably you mean "It doesn't" but that is incorrect since the courts don't agree with you. And only one opinion counts.

[brewcrew]

Great. Now I no longer have to look forward to the day when I can buy regular old unleaded gasoline instead of the 10% ethanol crap - mandated by the EPA in this area - that burns hotter and allows me to get 2 mpg less. The EPA has come to my rescue and I can look forward to raising my family in an imperceptibly cleaner atmosphere while I have to buy cars almost twice as often.

Thank God for the SCOTUS - I never would have had this kind of leverage without them. How did I get so lucky? Somewhere in my youth or childhood I must have done something good.

[an amused spectator]

Here is a pocket history of the case:

Alaska DEC v. EPA [Red Dog Mine], (U.S. Supreme Court; state’s attorney: Cameron Leonard, John G. Roberts, and Lorene Hebert; U.S. attorney: Theodore Olson). In February 2000, ADEC petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review an order that EPA issued to ADEC, instructing that agency not to issue an air permit to Teck Cominco, Alaska, Inc., operators of the Red Dog Mine. EPA disagreed with ADEC’s selection of the NOx emissions control technology to require that Cominco install on a new generator. The basis for ADEC’s petition from the EPA order was that EPA had exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act by vetoing the state’s choice of what technology to require.

=====================

Turns out that it's a crew of "the usual suspects", the Clinton Administration & some Ninth Circus black-robed clowns:

Stephen Reinhardt, Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

After further unsuccessful negotiations, the EPA issued a “Finding of Noncompliance Order” on December 10, 1999, stating that ADEC’s authorization of Cominco’s construction and installation of new equipment was not in compliance with the Clean Air Act and the Alaska SIP. Pursuant to Sections 113(a)(5) and 167 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413(a)(5) and 7477, the EPA ordered ADEC to withhold issuance of Cominco’s PSD permit.

Later that same day, however, in disregard of the EPA’s order, ADEC issued the PSD permit along with a second Final Technical Analysis Report.

On February 8, 2000, the EPA sent a letter to ADEC with a formal finding that the December 10, 1999 report and PSD permit failed to comply with federal and state PSD requirements.

On the same day, the EPA issued a second order to Cominco preventing the company from beginning construction on the MG-17 generator until Cominco had demonstrated to the EPA’s satisfaction compliance with the Act and the SIP.

The EPA’s third order, dated March 7, 2000, modified the February 8, 2000 order to allow Cominco to engage in summer-dependent construction activities. On April 25, 2000, the EPA withdrew its December 10, 1999 order prohibiting ADEC from issuing the permit. In an accompanying letter, however, the EPA emphasized that its findings of noncompliance in the December 10, 1999 and February 8, 2000 orders remained unchanged.

ADEC and Cominco petition this court for review of the December 10, 1999 Finding of Noncompliance and Order; the February 8, 2000 Administrative Order; and the March 7, 2000 Amended Administrative Order. Petitioners claim that the EPA exceeded its authority by issuing enforcement orders invalidating ADEC’s issuance of Cominco’s PSD permit, and that ADEC acted within its discretion when making its BACT determination.

[Sloth]

What Constitutional contortionism did they use this time?

The UN Charter? The Communist Manifesto? Where's Waldo? Anything is fair game for this court.

[AAABEST]

Thus, the pinko is YOU.

Yeah me Thomas, Scalia and Renquist.

Sorry, you're the one who agrees with the leftists on the SC, not I. All the lefties agree with you, while all the conservatives on the SC and nearly everyone on this thread agree with me.

If you're going to be a big government socialist, you should at least be proud of it. Raise your fist high!

Here... make kissy face with your favorite gal, then send her a "kudos" letter complimenting her on what a great job she did.

[stylin_geek]

Actually, I would accuse the Congress of purposely abdicating this responsibility to such an agency, so as to avoid any political repercussions.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not really since regulations are commonly written to implement laws. There are always open for a substantial period precisely for comment by the affected parties and anyone is free to make comments. They are routinely changed when sufficient reasonable objections or additions are raised.

[B Knotts]

I wonder what this means for Engine Manufacturers Association vs. South Coast Air Quality Management District...

[justshutupandtakeit]

You have not refuted the statement that Communist nations are far greater polluters than Capitalist ones. Or the fact that capitalist nations actually PAY for the damages they do rather than pretend they don't exist like the commies.

But when one has little intellectual power to argue a point it is common to start name-calling hoping no one with sufficient mental resources will see that it is vacuous.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not even an admitted commie should be subject to such abuse as THAT.

[itsahoot]

What Constitutional contortionism did they use this time? >/i>

I would imagine "Interstate Commerce." Which has come to mean anything that moves, sells, buys, breathes or twitches anywhere within the borders of the US.

Maybe the Kyoto protocol?

[AAABEST]

You have not refuted the statement that Communist nations are far greater polluters than Capitalist ones.

Of course that's correct... gosh. The reason why this is because the "Capitalist ones" avoid centralized power such as this idiotic and destructive decision furthers, and steer clear of the collectivist philosophy such as what you purport.

How on earth can one torturously purport that empowering giant centralized bureaucracies is somehow virtuistic capitalism, while arguing on the same side as Bader-Ginsburg and David Souter?

You're not making any damn sense. Now watch, you're going to come back and say something twice as stupid and irritating.

[larlaw]

I don't think it is O'Connor's "rapid mental deterioration", I think it is pure "finger in the wind" political judging. Her judging style has never had any firm principles, conservative or liberal. It just so happens that because of her moderately conservative inclinations, her legal conclusions usually brought her to the right results on many cases. But since there were really no legal principles involved in her judicial analysis to begin with (just subjective "balancing tests" and taking things on a "case by case" basis), it is very easy for her to simply switch sides on her conclusions without ever changing her judicial philosophy. Ever since Bush v. Gore O'Connor has done close to a 180 and has been voting regularly with the four liberals on just about all of the major social issues.

I personally think she is trying to "atone" for her vote in Bush v. Gore with the liberal media (who of course have been praising her "thoughtfulness"). She is further stroking the elitist legal establishment and wants to be written about favorably by the liberal legal academics who will analyze and review her opinions for the history books. Voting to the Left for a few terms helps her mitigate the academic criticisms she will suffer for voting with the conservative majority in Bush v. Gore.

She has swung the Rehnquist Court to the left single-handedly, and needs to retire ASAP...and another reason why W. needs to be re-elected despite his disappointments on affirmative action, immigration, gay marriage, etc.

[wjcsux]

If the INS was as vigalent about enforcement of immigration laws as the EPA is about enforcement of environmental laws, there wouldn't be an "illegal immigration" problem.

[Sandy]

However, in this case there was a big difference between a technology which achieved 30% reduction and one with a 90% reduction.

Irrelevant. The statute explicitly requires the EPA to challenge the state's BACT determination in state proceedings. The liberals on the court don't like that requirement, so they're interpreting the law to mean something other than what it actually says. They're acting as legislators, rewriting the law instead of just reading the damn thing. That's judicial activism in a nutshell.