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.
Not a puzzle any more.
What are they teaching students in Harvard Law School? It is certainly not the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.
Patriots need to get state sovereignty-ignoring justices like Roberts off of the bench.
Roberts is a MAJOR factor in the destruction of the US.
Sort of. I don't believe Roberts is normally a Liberal, but I think he happens to be a liberal in one particular manner that is not readily apparent. I direct you to my earlier comment above, but a summation of it is that Roberts desperately wants Obama to not be seen as a failed President and an Idiot, because the SYMBOL that Obama represents is very inspirational and encouraging to Black folk...
...but only if he is successful. He represents abject humiliation if Obama is seen as an idiot failure.
It would make the racists appear correct. They've said for years that a Black man is incapable of being the equal of whites, and Obama has just given them more evidence for their racist ideas.
Roberts is trying to do what he can to ameliorate the appearance that Obama is incompetent.
That's my theory, anyway.
The shame in all this was that Liberals were in such a hurry to promote a "Black" President, that they didn't bother to take the time to make sure they got someone who could do the job adequately.
They picked a mouthy, petulant, fool.
But you knew otherwise, right?
Freepers supported him because we were dependent on those who said that they knew.
Ted Cruz was among those who said that he knew Roberts to be a conservative. Cruz was wrong.
The real brain teaser for me, even at that time, was why in the world they would elevate a brand new Scotus justice to be Chief Justice.
That really was Scalia’s chair. Everyone knew it.
Had he been Chief Justice, a lot of this stuff would not have happened. To include his death.
[ He did not push for it. He called for confirmation just like everyone else. No one saw it coming. ]
Cruz suggested someone else, but when W made up his mind he got behind W in supporting him, Like everyone else in the GOP, Talk Radio and even free republic at the time.
Everyone informed on politics knows this traces squarely back to Obama. He made that famous campaign speech about shutting down plants, and most people who are aware of Obama, knows he owns this.
This is just pure meddling when it did not have to be meddled with.
It's protecting Obama. That's what Roberts has been doing logical back-flips to accomplish.
And NOT A PEEP OUT OF THE GOP!
Before you go along with the idea that bogeyman Soros is behind every malevolent thing that happens in the world, I would ask you to contemplate my explanation for Robert's behavior.
I think it best explains the available facts.
See #66.
I was not a Supreme Court clerk, honor graduate of Harvard Law School, and Texas Solicitor General.
Your attempt at comparison was not logical, Larry.
Or he's been told he has an open invitation to go hunting at a luxury ranch in Texas or picnicking in Ft. Marcy park. Maybe all of the above.
Exactly, Roberts went out of his way to carry Obama’s water, even when he didn’t have to do so.
Maybe he thought he could slip it through with all the campaign stuff buzzing.
Certainly not 'original intent'. That's quaint history. Doubt someone could make it through law school much less become a judge with an 'original intent' approach. Scalia, contrary to popular belief, was not remotely an originalist. He was a 'textualist', and there's a big difference.
Well, I understand what you are saying, but I truly hope we don’t have someone that shallow on the high bench...But maybe we do...It’s a shame...
I understand that. I wasn’t here until 2006, but I did not support him. There was no record he would be a conservative.
That is a non-sequitur. The fact that Trump said his extremely Liberal sister was a great judge, and that he would appoint more like her, has nothing to do with the fact that Roberts appeared to be a constitutional conservative when his nomination was being considered.
It's not a trade. You don't justify one bad thing by saying someone else did something wrong as well.
And that's assuming that Cruz did something wrong, which I don't believe anyways. We were all fooled by Roberts, not just Cruz.
Disaster is the word that comes to mind.
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.