[NormsRevenge]

Ginsburg's usual allies on the court's ideological left joined her in the ruling: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen Breyer. The crucial fifth vote came from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who usually votes with the court conservatives in states' rights cases.

[Dead Corpse]

What Constitutional contortionism did they use this time?

Never mind. I REALLY don't want to know....

[PhiKapMom]

When is the last time O'Connor voted with conservatives except for Texas redistricting? Time for her to retire like yesterday. All of her recent rulings that are major have been flawed in favor of the liberals IMO.

We need someone on the Supreme Court that recognizes the right of states!

[stylin_geek]

Again, the EPA is an out of control rogue agency, that blatantly usurps powers that should be reserved to Congress, in that they issue regulations that have the force of law and then proceed to enforce said regulations as if they were law.

[NormsRevenge]

Ping

[caisson71]

More "activism" from the SCOTUS. WE might as well burn the Constitution.

[nightdriver]

It's time to arrest some of the "justices" on the Supreme Court. If Congress won't rein them in, it's time to arrest some congressmen too!

[Lancey Howard]

The crucial fifth vote came from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who usually votes with the court conservatives in states' rights cases.

Here she goes again. The scumbags are going to take full advantage of O'Connor's rapid mental deterioration. I only hope the damage can be limited.

[oceanview]

well, california and 4 other northeast states have different (tougher) pollution regulations for cars. The EPA now ought to be able to toss those out. Of course, it won't happen. But generally speaking, we should be able to have national uniform standards. I do not see that the right to pollute at a certain level is granted to the states. suppose a bunch of states got together and said that cars didn't need catalytic converters, would that be OK?

[lilylangtree]

Superseding states rights again? Making more law instead of interpreting it. Down with SCOTUS! Do away with the overeager, bunch of misfits.

[Destructor]

Let us all join hands and sing hymns of praise to our comrades on the glorious Supreme Court for thwarting the will of the people (again)!

[SheLion]

Ahhhh the wonderful EPA! */scarasm off*

[leprechaun9]

Now there is a good way for every state to handle their budget crises. Every state should abolish their Departments of Environmental Protection and significantly cut costs and eliminate the nit-picking anti-development procedures of the local tree huggers!

Send all the applications for development to Socialist Sundry O'Connor.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

---

If this is taxes with reprsentation
Give me taxes without representation
I much prefer a tax on tea!
Instead of everything else.

[steve8714]

Are some Eastern states not suing the EPA over a change of rules? This may be a Pyrrhic victory for enviros.

[Leatherneck_MT]

LOL we don't HAVE a Constitution any more.

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

[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.

[B Knotts]

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

[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.