Supremes Rule EPA Final Arbiter on Carbon Dioxide

Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#1
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
June 20, 2011


On Monday the Supreme Court blocked a federal lawsuit launched by conservation groups to force power plants to reduce so-called greenhouse gases. The ruling was 8-0.

The lawsuit targeted four private companies and the federal Tennessee Valley Authority. The private defendants in the suit are American Electric Power Co. of Ohio, Cinergy Co., now part of Duke Energy Corp. of North Carolina; Southern Co. Inc. of Georgia, and Xcel Energy Inc. of Minnesota, reports the Associated Press.

According to the high court, only the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to mandate a reduction in emissions. In December, the EPA said it will issue new regulations next year on power plants and carbon dioxide.

The court said the states and conservation groups can appeal in federal court under the Clean Air Act if they object to any eventual decision made by the EPA.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court, said the Clean Air Act gives the EPA authority to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, not the states and the courts. Ginsburg is opposed to “control of greenhouse gas emissions by federal judges.”

In 2007, the court ruled that under the Clean Air Act carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are air pollutants. In a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate emissions from new cars and trucks. The same reasoning, the court argued, applies to power plants.

In 2009, the EPA issued its “endangerment finding” that would allow the federal agency to use the federal Clean Air Act to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions. The EPA ruling and enforcement “could result in a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue said at the time. “The devil will be in the details, and we look forward to working with the government to ensure we don’t stifle our economic recovery.”

In February, we reported that the Obama administration was targeting the coal industry as a major contributor to the theory of man-made global warming.

“The rolling blackouts now being implemented in Texas and across the country as record cold weather grips the United States are a direct consequence of the Obama administration’s agenda to lay siege to the coal industry, launch a takeover of infrastructure under the contrived global warming scam, and help usher in the post-industrial collapse of America,” Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson wrote in early February.

At the time, local environmental officials in Texas were involved in a fight with the EPA after the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality approved an air permit for the $3.2 billion Las Brisas Energy Center despite a formal EPA request that the commission “delay issuing the permit until EPA’s concerns about the plant’s emissions impacts are fully addressed.”

“The Obama administration is conducting industrial warfare against the United States. Obama’s 2008 promise to ‘bankrupt’ the coal industry by placing suffocating restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions even as China and other countries are given free reign to pollute at will is now coming to fruition,” Jones and Watson wrote. “This is all part of the ‘post-industrial revolution’ that the global elite have promised to enforce as a means of turning the United States into a decaying banana republic.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday signals a move to give the federal agency more authority to impose restrictions on the states under the guise of global warming.
So I guess this means Obamas lobbyists in the EPA will decide, which means Obamas contributors like GE will not have to go along with green taxes. It will be selective enforcement of green laws which proves the fear of carbon is a lie and its only purpose is to control your life more.
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,523
19,737
513
jersey
#2
Two things. The EPA has existed long before Obama was president. So have the lobbyists. Independent conversationalist groups have no grounds to affect governmental practices. That is why the vote was the way it was.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday signals a move to give the federal agency more authority to impose restrictions on the states under the guise of global warming.
The federal government has always been able to impose restrictions on state governments, no matter what the guise.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#4
Supremes Rule EPA Final Arbiter on Carbon Dioxide
No, they rule that it's a political issue, not a legal one. The reason why the federal government is destroying American industry by restricting the emissions of a harmless gas is the American electorate.

This ruling simply reaffirms something we already knew: the Supreme Court realizes that there is no point in trying to take on the American electorate on something as broad as environmental policies. If they did, they would just get replaced by people who aren't even willing to defend the rights the Supreme Court does have the power to defend, like free speech, or a fair trial. But Americans are still the final arbiter on this, they could very easily put an end to it just by voting for a President who doesn't believe in AGW.

Oh, and Obamacare will probably be treated the same way by the Supreme Court. At best, they'll strike down the one provision about forced insurance, but the assholes who caused both these messes by voting for Obama are the ones who are going to have to either fix it or we'll all suffer the consequences. The Supreme Court can't magically save the country from its own people's stupidity.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#5
Two things. The EPA has existed long before Obama was president.
Yes, but the ruling isn't about the EPA, it's about the EPA restricting emissions on something that is clearly not harmful to human health. That hasn't been around for a long time before Obama, it's the people he appointed who are doing this.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,632
8,804
693
Loveland, CO
#6
Yes, but the ruling isn't about the EPA, it's about the EPA restricting emissions on something that is clearly not harmful to human health. That hasn't been around for a long time before Obama, it's the people he appointed who are doing this.
Can I lock you in a room full of Carbon Dioxide for a day and see how healthy and refresed you get from that invigorating experience?
 
Oct 8, 2005
1,797
1
0
Reality
#7
Can I lock you in a room full of Carbon Dioxide for a day and see how healthy and refresed you get from that invigorating experience?
Does that mean water is poison? If I lock you in a room full of water you will be dead in under 3 minutes. We better ban water it could kill us. Reminds me of a great bit from BS where they got people like you to sign a petition to ban water.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#8
Can I lock you in a room full of Carbon Dioxide for a day and see how healthy and refresed you get from that invigorating experience?
You mean deprive me of Oxygen? No, you can't. You can feed me as much CO2 as you'd like, but you can't lock me in a room without Oxygen to do it.

Speaking of being Oxygen deprived, are you really arguing that CO2 IS poisonous?
 

The Godfather

Spark it up for The Godfather and say!!!!!
May 9, 2007
11,256
10
163
#10
too much of anything is poisonous. ever hear of "hold your wee for a wii"???

go masturbate and read some 'green' articles on The Nation about how capitalism is destroying the climate and ecosystem.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#11
Still don't get why Infowars leaves out pretty important things from their articles...

David Doniger, the Natural Resources Defense Council lawyer who represented the conservation groups, called on EPA to impose new regulations "without delay." The agency has said it will act by May 2012, although the government's brief said it is possible EPA ultimately could find "imposition of such standards inappropriate."
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,632
8,804
693
Loveland, CO
#12
Does that mean water is poison? If I lock you in a room full of water you will be dead in under 3 minutes. We better ban water it could kill us. Reminds me of a great bit from BS where they got people like you to sign a petition to ban water.
You mean like a room filled with the equivalent amount of aspartame required to give a human cancer?
 

mikeybot

SPANAKOPITA!!!
Jul 25, 2005
19,318
3,601
623
philly
#17
Does that mean water is poison? If I lock you in a room full of water you will be dead in under 3 minutes. We better ban water it could kill us. Reminds me of a great bit from BS where they got people like you to sign a petition to ban water.
You really make the worse fucking arguments ever.