February 9, 2016

SCOTUS says “No” to Obama’s power grab over energy [Darleen Click]

The four Leftist justices were not pleased:

A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday abruptly halted President Obama’s controversial new power plant regulations, dealing a blow to the administration’s sweeping plan to address global warming.

In a 5-4 decision, the court halted enforcement of the plan until after legal challenges are resolved.

The surprising move is a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab.”

By temporarily freezing the rule the high court’s order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.

The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.

The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030. […]

The compliance period starts in 2022, but states must submit their plans to the Environmental Protection Administration by September or seek an extension.

Many states opposing the plan depend on economic activity tied to such fossil fuels as coal, oil and gas. They argued that power plants will have to spend billions of dollars to begin complying with a rule that may end up being overturned.

Attorney General Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, whose coal-dependent state is helping lead the legal fight, hailed the court’s decision.

“We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule’s immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues,” Morrisey said.

Implementation of the rules is considered essential to the United States meeting emissions-reduction targets in a global climate agreement signed in Paris last month.

Posted by Darleen @ 11:09pm
6 comments | Trackback

Comments (6)

  1. The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.

    Because what’s the point of having power if the law won’t let you use it?

  2. that makes no sense

    if there’s a strong likelihood of prevailing then there should be a stay

    otherwise lots of people can get needlessly hurt

    that sotomayor hooch in particular is a spiteful whore i hate her

  3. otherwise lots of people can get needlessly hurt

    Merely grist for the wheels of progress, grinding slow but exceedingly fine.

  4. The four liberal judges accuse the other five of acting “for political reasons”, yet – AMAZINGLY – their votes are not only predictable in advance, those four seem to always vote in precisely the same way…

    And Democrats decry the 5-4 decision as “politicization of the court”, but the 5-4 in favor of ObamaCare being a tax means that it is “the Law of the Land”, and so Republicans just need to shut up and bend over.

    Perfectly consistent.

  5. -Typical: whatever the Left accuses us of doing is what they, in fact, are doing.

    -The Left are making omelets and we’re just a bunch of eggs [and, I tell you: it’s hard to keep your sunny-side up these days].

  6. It’s bad only if conservatives do it.

    What is “it?” That is immaterial.

Leave a Reply