Supreme Court Blocks EPA's 'good neighbor' Aimed at Combating Air Pollution

Friday, June 28, 2024

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to block an environmental rule that aims to curb air pollution and address harmful smog that travels from certain states into others while legal proceedings continue.

Posted by retort at 12:21 AM | 21 COMMENTS | permalink

Comments

Lumpy is looking for another trip on the mega yacht.

People developing asthma is a small price for them to pay for his vacationing.

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-06-28 09:24 AM

SCOTUS is certainly on a roll today, gutting regulatory authority and citing "wrong charges" for the insurrectionists/terrorists. What an assist for the coming dictatorship.

#2 | Posted by Yodagirl at 2024-06-28 11:32 AM

I remember back in the day when I lived in NYC, you could see a "ring around the horizon" on summer afternoons when the wind was coming in from the WSW. At time during the summer, i could remember my eyes burning from the air outside.

The news at the time showed satellite photos of smoke coming from coal-fired power plants in Ohio going across Pennsylvania and into the NYC region.

The smoke wasn't affecting the people of the state that was generating the smoke, but the people in other states to the east.

#3 | Posted by lamplighter at 2024-06-28 11:47 AM

@#2 ... What an assist for the coming dictatorship. ...

Is SCOTUS punting on the ~presidential immunity~ decision?

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-06-28 12:51 PM

@#4

Chief Justice Roberts just said that the last opinion day for this term will be Monday ...

Justice John Roberts says the Supreme Court's last decisions of this term are coming on Monday
apnews.com

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-06-28 01:13 PM

Without the rule being in place, I suspect downwind states will have to sue polluting states to get relief. The problem is how do you "prove" that pollution from an upwind state is causing specific problems in the downwind state?

#6 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2024-06-28 07:58 PM

@#6 ... The problem is how do you "prove" that pollution from an upwind state is causing specific problems in the downwind state? ...

That's the plaintiff's problem to prove and resolve in a Court of Law, and not a reason to veto the law.

If someone robs a bank, but wears a mask so the lack of video identification makes it difficult to identify who committed the crime, should the law against robbing banks be declared invalid by SCOTUS?

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-06-28 08:24 PM

SCOTUS is irrevocably corrupt. Today's rulings are a massive change to the way this countey works, and a dismantling of the things that DO work. It's not a mistake that these opinions dropped the day the nation is enraptured with post-debate coverage, or that their immunity opinion will drop on the eve of a long holiday weekend. By July 8, it will feel like a year has passed.

#8 | Posted by JOE at 2024-06-28 08:31 PM

The problem is how do you "prove" that pollution from an upwind state is causing specific problems in the downwind state?

The EPA had precise modeling on this. You should read the case.

#9 | Posted by JOE at 2024-06-29 08:36 AM

I thought Joe was a Lawyer.

SCOTUS didn't dismantle GH, it only stated the EPA did not explain why the emissions-control measures required by the plan " which were designed on the assumption that the plan would apply to all 23 states.

Seems to me this would be a major change in how pollution is addressed. Perhaps making some costs not needed and others ignored.

Why didn't the EPA re-evaluate?

When many dropped out how did that affect the plan, EPA never stated how it would affect the rest.

Finally the EPA rejecting all the 21 states plans is really a bad look.

The policy is being contested, and it's pointless for states to implement the regulations if they don't have to.

That's all the ruling is about.

The federal government is out of control.

#10 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-06-29 09:19 AM

This case provides an example of how the practical definition of Conservatism is "opposition to change."

Doesn't matter the reasons. They'll come up with whatever reasons they need, to oppose any changes to the status quo.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-06-29 09:22 AM

#11 I think it's a little more insidious than that. The compass seems to be what serves business and Republican interests, not resistance to change.

Revoking the Chevron doctrine is change. Overruling Roe is change. These freaks are dramatically remaking our society.

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2024-06-29 09:36 AM

Change for the sake of change isnt always good change.

But then again, liberals are only for "change" that they agree with.

#13 | Posted by boaz at 2024-06-29 09:39 AM

That's true of anyone.
You aren't too good at understanding extremely basic concepts.

#14 | Posted by YAV at 2024-06-29 09:50 AM

BTW - Change for the sake of change can lead to very interesting results. Those results can lead on to breakthroughs. Justice Louis Brandeis understood that.

#14 was specifically addressing "But then again, liberals are only for "change" that they agree with." That statement was remarkably self-unaware and a poorly executed attempt at a goad.

#15 | Posted by YAV at 2024-06-29 09:53 AM

"Conservatives: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

#16 | Posted by YAV at 2024-06-29 09:58 AM

Revoking the Chevron doctrine is change. Overruling Roe is change. These freaks are dramatically remaking our society.
#12 | POSTED BY JOE

But it's also a change back, to the way things used to be. With the goal of dramatically un-making our society.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-06-29 10:09 AM

#17 | POSTED BY SNOOFY: Which would be fine if I was still 5 years old and it was still 1956.

#18 | Posted by Yodagirl at 2024-06-29 02:05 PM

Most corrupt SCROTUS Eva!

(no there wasn't a misspelling)...

#19 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-06-29 04:19 PM

#19 | POSTED BY EARTHMUSE: Sounds like New Hampsha speak'n.

#20 | Posted by Yodagirl at 2024-06-29 06:03 PM

Nice guess, but wrong Yoda...

#21 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-06-29 07:12 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Biden: 'When You Get Knocked Down, You Get Back Up' (63 comments)

An Experiment Doled Out Money to Homeless People in Denver (57 comments)

Supreme Court Ruling Will Allow More Aggressive Homeless Crackdowns (47 comments)

SCOTUS Gives Presidents 'Absolute Immunity' for 'Official Acts' (39 comments)

Why Not Call for the Convicted Felon who Endlessly Lies to Step Down? (34 comments)

What SCOTUS Just Did by Overturning Chevron (28 comments)

Newspaper Urges Felon Trump to Exit Race (21 comments)

Far-right National Rally Leads France's Snap Poll (18 comments)