Roberts Strikes Again, Sides With Obama On Air Pollution Rule…


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 the 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 carbon dioxide rule for power plants — in asking the court to live up to its ruling last year and block the regulation’s enforcement.

Weasel Zippers | Scouring the bowels of the internet | Weasel Zippers

Another win for obama.


Roberts needs to be punished for his refusal to be obedient to his oath of office and support “this Constitution” and the defined and limited powers delegated to our federal government. I wonder how his children feel about his willingness to allow fascists to have their way and circumvent almost every provision of our Constitution.


We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.


If he raised 'em, I doubt they care one way or another.


ALL who haven’t been obedient to keep their oaths of office need punished. It’s way long past time when NOT doing so be considered, “BAD Behavior.”

*The OP link led me to various stories, but nothing re: Roberts decision/this last ruling of the U.S. getting screwed over, yet once again, by the tyranny of the Supreme Court by allowing the EPA to run roughshod over the Constitution.

It’s as WRONG as can be!


That wasn’t what the court said last year. Scalia wrote that decision and said they had to consider costs when regulating mercury emissions. The EPA released a cost analysis in December to comply with that.

Washington Post — Supreme Court smacks EPA for ignoring costs, but mercury rule likely to persevere (June 2015)


…which DOESN’T make the EPA “rule” any more Constitutional than it was in the first place. The EPA is a rogue agency that has assumed powers that it doesn’t have. Not according to the Constitution and NOT according to common sense.


I wasn’t making an argument as to the EPA’s authority, merely pointing out that this refusal to stay the mercury regulations is not inconsistent with the Court’s decision last year, which Sam’s source seemed to imply.

Scalia’s decision did not say that regulating mercury was outside the bounds of the EPA’s authority, but rather that it could not do so without considering cost. Now that they’ve done that, the regulations will go forward.


Not until the Supreme Court has reviewed the EPA’s (probably fudged) “cost estimates” and then rules that it’s now in compliance with the Constitution–which isn’t very likely since the EPA is an unconstitutional agency in the first place.


I seriously doubt it given how expansive the Court has allowed the Commerce Clause to get, which is what they’ll use to defend these regulations, like all such regulations.


Even so, to REVERSE last year’s decision, it has to be heard again by the court. That means that it probably won’t be re-heard until NEXT year’s session and, if the GOP will, for once, keep it’s word, it’ll be with a 9th Justice on the court, hopefully appointed by a GOP President.

BTW, that lack of costs being considered is NOT the only reason the EPA “rule” was halted by the court.


The COST shouldn’t even be considered! The COST has absolutely nothing to do with whether it’s Constitutional or not.

The banana-ism of our courts, ALL of them, is about enough to make you want to go screaming naked into the woods!


I believe the issue of considering cost had to do with an interpretation of the Clear Air Act, not constitutionality.


No joke. Ergo, whole thing was unConstitutional right from the get-go.