Posted on 03/03/2016 8:05:41 AM PST by xzins
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rejected a plea Thursday to block a contentious air pollution rule for power plants, in a big victory for the Obama administration.
Roberts’s order came despite his court’s 5-4 decision last year ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation, known as mercury and air toxics standards, is illegal.
Michigan led a group of 20 states last month, empowered by the Supreme Court’s recent unprecedented decision to halt the EPA’s climate change rule for power plants, in asking the court to live up to its ruling last year and block the regulation’s enforcement. “Unless this court stays or enjoins further operation of the Mercury and Air Toxics rule, this court’s recent decision in Michigan v. EPA will be thwarted,” the states wrote in a Feb. 23 filing with the court.
“A stay or injunction is appropriate because this court has already held that the finding on which the rule rests in unlawful and beyond EPA’s statutory authority.”
The EPA responded that no judicial stay is necessary, since it’s working to fix the problem the court identified by next month, and the states would not suffer irreparable harm in that time.
“The requested stay would harm the public interest by undermining reliance interests and the public health and environmental benefits associated with the rule,” the government said. “The application lacks merit and should be denied.”
Roberts acted swiftly, waiting less than a day after the EPA’s response brief to side with the Obama administration. He acted unilaterally, electing to reject the request himself rather than take it to the full court, which may have led to a 4-4 split following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death.
The court ruled last June that the EPA should have conducted a cost-benefit analysis on the regulation before it even decided to start writing it. The agency did so as part of the regulatory process, but the justices said that was not sufficient.
But the Supreme Court did not overturn the rule at the time, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in December that the EPA could keep enforcing it.
Environmental groups were very pleased with Roberts’s decision.
Obama has dirt on Roberts.
Yes CRUZ was a HUGE cheerleader for Roberts!!!!
What a turncoat!!
Who brought Roberts to the Bush circle, again?
Ted Cruz pushed HARD for this guy with GWB...his BFF and fellow former clerk for Rehnquist. Lovely.
I don't know if you've been noticing, but this business of Republican appointees flipping over to become Liberal Democrats has been going on for a very long time. Eisenhower said that the appointment of Earl Warren was the biggest mistake he ever made.
Reagan appointed Kennedy and O'Connor, both of whom went pretty Liberal.
The problem is that the law colleges are infected with Liberal teachers and Liberal ideas, and the entire pool of legal candidates is polluted with this stuff.
That ad the social and media environment of Washington D.C. is horribly liberal, and it suffuses everyone who goes up there. Time and time again i've seen staunch conservatives get elected and then go to Washington D.C. all to become infected with the same disease.
I think you are remembering that correctly. I believe Scalia’s opinion refers to the arguments of “the minority”, which is at odds with the side on which he ended up in this particular case.
The leverage Obama has is that Roberts adopted two Irish kids.
It is against the law in Ireland for non-Irsh citizens to adopt Irish kids.
The two kids Roberts adopted were first moved to a South or Central American country where they lived for a couple years.
THEN Roberts adopted them from there.
The leverage Obama has on Roberts is that he can take awway Roberts’ kids.
It’s not Cruz’s fault. Roberts is an SOB, and had Trump been in the Senate he would have voted for him also. Roberts would not be there except for the Gang of 8. Why didn’t Roberts die instead of Scalia?
you make some interesting points. My theory is simpler but somewhat close to yours. With a 4/4 split in court I think Roberts thinks a tie should result in deference to the President. The problem I have with my own theory is that this SC has already ruled on the matter against the President. I would have thought that fact would Trump any so-called deference given to the President. In any event I think Roberts ruled the way he did based on some procedural rule he has made up now that the court is split 4/4. just an opinion.
So how old are these ‘kids’ now?
Roberts is a conservative. What he turned out to be is a conservative DEAL MAKER!!! Like Trump only minus the conservative part.
You have it exactly right.
I don't think it is deference to the President, I think Roberts is showing deference to this specific President, and for exactly the reasons I mentioned; Because he is "black" and Roberts wants him to win. Robert's is a fan of the idea of a "black" President.
As for examples where it went against Obama, you can only stretch the law so far out of deference. Obama is such a f***ing idiot, and because he has no comprehension of the law anyways, occasionally he blunders in a direction where even Robert's deference to him can't save Obama's legal position.
In any event I think Roberts ruled the way he did based on some procedural rule he has made up now that the court is split 4/4. just an opinion.
Did you happen to see the Robert's swearing in of Obama? Roberts was so beside himself with deferential Hero Worship that he fumbled it up, and it had to be done over.
Roberts is in love with the idea of what Obama represents. He's in love with the idea of a "black" President, and his behavior at the swearing in ceremony indicates this, and his behavior since tends to confirm it.
Let's also not forget the overwhelming support across the entire conservative spectrum, including most at this site. Hell, I thought he'd be a good choice myself, given what we knew. I don't think anyone expected him to be the snake that he turned out to be. I'm still thinking he's under control of blackmail over his children.
OMG, as did every other GOP Senator. The point of you attacking Cruz is you support someone else for President. Please answer some questions honestly.
Who has the closest view to the original view of the US Constitution and is running for President?
Who has actual experience in fighting the cabal of corruption in Washington DC?
Who has experience navigating the red tape and can best use the corruption to enrich himself?
I believe it is just deference to the Presidency and he would do the same regardless of who was President. I think it was a rules-based procedural thing. However you could be right though. I don’t think any of us know enough about the real Roberts to know for sure how he really arrived at the decision. I guess if Trump were elected and there was still a 4/4 court for a period of time we might see if he rules any differently.
And, he can fire 75% of all the employees there for whatever reason he chooses...like downsizing.
No congress or court can force an executive to spend EPA allocated funds...or force EPA to write new rules...or force EPA to do ANYTHING. Ever.
That is the sole dominion of the Executive.
That is the understatement of the century.
thank you GW Bush for such an admirable man you nominated, you even promoted him as Chief Justice even before he came into office.
A worthless piece of trash.
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.