Discussion for article #237983
Scalia said it is not appropriate to impose billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.
See…Scalia’s totally cool with some kinds of unnatural marriages.
2 Likes
Ah, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, et. al., protecting capitalism again. “Not sufficient taking into account COSTS.”
Spoken like true Republicans.
6 Likes
Yeah, this one, and the FHA “disparate impact” case, actually had me more worried than King; I knew it was too much to hope for that I’d be pleasantly surprised about this one, too… Any wonks here have a sense of how easy/hard it’ll be for EPA to adjust to the ruling without trashing the regulatory scheme?
3 Likes
It’s a delaying action. Basically, they’ll have to go back and create a record demonstrating that started over and took compliance cost relative to benefits into account in deciding whether it was reasonable to regulate in the first place. They’re not starting from scratch, because all the work they did will get folded back in, but there will have to be an entirely new rule making proceeding followed by a new round of appeals, by which time both sides hope the ideological balance of all three branches will have dramatically shifted.
7 Likes
Jesus Christ on a crutch. It never fails to amaze me that the Environmental Protection Agency was created by, of all presidents, Richard Nixon. Nixon. Just crazy what the difference of a few decades can be.
…Scalia said it is not appropriate to impose billions of dollars of
economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental
benefits.
A “few dollars in health benefits”??? This sh*thead doesn’t care about the 300K people in West Virginia who were directly affected by having “Freedom Industries” dump highly potent toxic chemicals into the Elk River. And since the company, which has now declared bankruptcy, isn’t required to tell anyone what was in the toxic brew, the citizens in W. VA will be dealing with the effects for years to come.
But who cares, right? So long as companies get a few pennies more in profit, that’s the best outcome.
7 Likes
Exactly, because if the founding fathers were worried about mercury and arsenic spewing from power plants they would have said so. And besides, Jesus didn’t worry about the environment – look at what he did to that fig tree. And Simon Peter and his minions were over fishing the Sea Of Galilee for years and nothing happened to it. Shekels are people too my friend.
5 Likes
One more reason to get out enough voters in 2016, not only to elect Hillary, but to overcome the gerrymander of house districts, get the senate back, and get us a sane congress. One more reason I despise anyone who would stay at home because Sanders isn’t the nominee.
Funny how Reagan’s decision to eliminate any attempt at nonpartisan selection of judges has changed the focus of presidential elections for intelligent voters to their effect on the Supreme Court. Nixon tried to put an unregenerate southern racist on the Court out of spite, but Reagan planned, even before his election, to start appointing solely for political purposes. I worked at Tx.Cr.App.with Solomon Wisenberg [sp??}, one of the folks who would become his selection scouts, and he boasted to me of the plan in July of 1980.
2 Likes
Writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said it is not appropriate to impose billions of dollars of economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits.
Corporate profit vs health/environmental benefits…
Easy to see which ‘people, my friends’ is more equal than people…
Actually, the interesting point here is that Scalia wrote the decision. I thought Roberts was trying to divy up the workload a bit more evenly, but Scalia is way ahead of everyone else in writing decisions on this court.
For whatever reason, Scalia is always the right’s go-to guy in environmental law cases.
Imma pick on this quote too, just using basic math.
[quote]…the costs of installing and operating equipment to remove [mercury] are hefty — $9.6 billion a year, the EPA found.
But the benefits are … 37 billion to $90 billion annually, the agency said.[/quote]
Yo Tony, do you even math?
2 Likes
He is definitely getting the lion’s share of decisions under Roberts. Besides what I have heard that Roberts was going to try to spread the workload around a bit more, I figured Scalia’s little tantrum against Roberts and specifically Kennedy in his dissents last week would have seen this in someone else’s hand.
But I suppose that decision was already made before his dissentantrums came out.