Supreme Court won't hear challenge to EPA rulemaking

[Willinois]

With Congress in the hands of the fossil fuel industry, a combination of several EPA rules will be the most important tool for dealing with climate change during Obama's second term. That makes this story a BFD.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/2...L920130122

Quote:The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to consider reducing the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to set air quality standards, leaving intact a tough new limit on sulfur dioxide emissions in a victory for the Obama administration.

Without comment, the court decided not to hear an appeal by Grupo Mexico SAB's Asarco LLC unit of a lower court ruling that upholds a 2010 EPA rule limiting sulfur dioxide in the air to 75 parts per billion over one hour. Short-term exposure to sulfur dioxide has been linked to respiratory problems. (http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/).

On Monday, U.S. President Barack Obama in his inauguration speech made the politically charged issue of climate change a top priority for his second term. He cited a need to protect future generations from man-made pollutants.

[pappy]

The tide may be shifting even in the currently conservative Supreme Court. One or two retirements from the conservative side and maybe this country can start moving forward faster and in a more progressive direction.

[Willinois]

(01-22-2013 04:55 PM)pappy Wrote:  The tide may be shifting even in the currently conservative Supreme Court. One or two retirements from the conservative side and maybe this country can start moving forward faster and in a more progressive direction.

I was just wondering the other day if Obama might get to appoint another justice or two. Four are in their 70's. But, the oldest is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so Obama may get to appoint one more justice but still not challenge the balance of the court.

[pappy]

(01-22-2013 05:06 PM)Willinois Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 04:55 PM)pappy Wrote:  The tide may be shifting even in the currently conservative Supreme Court. One or two retirements from the conservative side and maybe this country can start moving forward faster and in a more progressive direction.

I was just wondering the other day if Obama might get to appoint another justice or two. Four are in their 70's. But, the oldest is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, so Obama may get to appoint one more justice but still not challenge the balance of the court.

Scalia and Kennedy are only 3 years younger than Ginsburg. All three born before WWII. Thomas is a baby boomer born in 1948. He is the only member born in that decade.

Kennedy could be the wild card out of those four. He has been, as we all know, the "swing" vote on many issues but lately he has gone with the conservatives more and more often. With Kennedy siding to overturn the ACA it took a surprise move by Roberts to save the ACA.

If Kennedy left the court we could get a more reliably liberal vote on the court and with so many decisions coming down to 5-4 votes that is all we would need to get favorable rulings for America.

I doubt Scalia would voluntarily retire with Obama in office but nothing in life is guaranteed, even for Associate Justices on the Supreme Court.