EPA v. EME Homer City Generation

Here's another big decision against business by the Supreme Court, 'Comic.
«1

Replies

  • tim_stim_s Senior Member Posts: 1,951 Senior Member
    not really....it isn't against business, it is against abuse by business
    Fly Fishing in Maine - www.flyfishinginmaine.com
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Unless we've truly gone socialist, that's what you do.
    Did the Supreme Court side with the EPA or with EME Homer?
  • Scott ButnerScott Butner Senior Member Posts: 3,918 Senior Member
    I think 'comic has a point: is every decision against an individual company, a blow against industry as a whole?

    Many of my industry friends don't necessarily think so -- they can adapt to to most regulatory requirements (the US chemical industry **** and moaned about the Toxics Release Inventory regulations back in the 90's, for instance -- but those rules ended up spawning the pollution prevention movement and the industry ended up reducing wastes by more than 30% while increasing production -- and in most cases, the waste reduction projects had positive ROI's). The key is rules and enforcement that are fairly applied, so that companies are on (as much as possible) a level regulatory playing field.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,584 Senior Member
    I think 'comic has a point

    Well that is the end of this discussion.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    The only point that I know for sure is tht I'll never read again that this U.S. Supreme Court has never made a decision against the interests of business.

    FWIW, a case has to be brought by a party. By finding for the EPA, that it has the ability to regulate cross-state emissions, the Court has ruled against the industry - not just the company. The Supreme Court can not enforce - that's up to Obama
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,584 Senior Member
    One case, does not make your point.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • Scott ButnerScott Butner Senior Member Posts: 3,918 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    The only point that I know for sure is tht I'll never read again that this U.S. Supreme Court has never made a decision against the interests of business.

    FWIW, a case has to be brought by a party. By finding for the EPA, that it has the ability to regulate cross-state emissions, the Court has ruled against the industry - not just the company. The Supreme Court can not enforce - that's up to Obama


    ****. EPA and industry are NOT necessarily at odds with each other. So ruling FOR EPA doesn't necessarily position you against industry -- but often times, merely against ONE company that somehow thinks it should be exempt from a given rule or regulation that all of their competitors are already abiding by. That may or may not be the case here, but the implication -- that every rule promulgated by EPA is somehow "anti-industry" is just plain rubbish.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    One case, does not make your point.

    Of course it does. I'll never hear you again say, the Supreme Court has never found against business.
    Your statement was wrong anyway, but here you go.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    ****. EPA and industry are NOT necessarily at odds with each other. So ruling FOR EPA doesn't necessarily position you against industry -- but often times, merely against ONE company that somehow thinks it should be exempt from a given rule or regulation that all of their competitors are already abiding by. That may or may not be the case here, but the implication -- that every rule promulgated by EPA is somehow "anti-industry" is just plain rubbish.

    C'mon, don't be silly. From the NYT (I'll do the research for you...)

    The 6-to-2 ruling bolsters the centerpiece of President Obama’s environmental agenda: a series of new regulations aimed at cutting pollution from coal-fired power plants. Republicans and the coal industry have criticized the regulations, which use the Clean Air Act as their legal authority, as a “war on coal.” The industry has waged an aggressive legal battle to undo the rules.

    Legal experts said the decision, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, signals that the Obama administration’s efforts to use the Clean Air Act to fight global warming could withstand legal challenges.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    What's telling here Steven is that you find the recent decision compelling enough to comment on it. Nothing from you regarding the anti-business stance of the court that I can recall over the last several years. The reason is simple, this is the most pro-business count in the last 60-70 years. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
    Published last month in The Minnesota Law Review, the study ranked the 36 justices who served on the court over those 65 years by the proportion of their pro-business votes; all five of the current court’s more conservative members were in the top 10. But the study’s most striking finding was that the two justices most likely to vote in favor of business interests since 1946 are the most recent conservative additions to the court, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., both appointed by President George W. Bush.

    http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/articles/volume-97-lead-piece-business-fares-supreme-court/
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,584 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Of course it does. I'll never hear you again say, the Supreme Court has never found against business.
    Your statement was wrong anyway, but here you go.

    I forgot only Republicans are allowed to engage in hyperbole.

    If you are this petty at home. The fact that you have never been smothered in your sleep is a testament to the loving patience of your family.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • Scott ButnerScott Butner Senior Member Posts: 3,918 Senior Member
    So you're saying that not allowing industry to do as they please with the environment is anti-business? Do you think that they have a RIGHT to pollute?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,584 Senior Member
    So you're saying that not allowing industry to do as they please with the environment is anti-business? Do you think that they have a RIGHT to pollute?

    In fairness. In their estimation it was in that businesses financial interests to fight these regulations. Whatever your broader view. In the short term, the lawyers representing that industry, lost that case.

    So Steven has a point. However I suspect that the govt put up one hell of a case. Like Chris Rock said, "When a black fighter is fighting a white fighter, he has to knock that guy out."
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    dryflie wrote: »
    What's telling here Steven is that you find the recent decision compelling enough to comment on it. Nothing from you regarding the anti-business stance of the court that I can recall over the last several years. The reason is simple, this is the most pro-business count in the last 60-70 years. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.



    http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/articles/volume-97-lead-piece-business-fares-supreme-court/

    I don't know what you find telling? You just figuring out that I'm not anti-business? Congrats.

    But that's neither here nor there. I just know I'm never going to hear how the Supreme Court never finds against business again
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    So you're saying that not allowing industry to do as they please with the environment is anti-business? Do you think that they have a RIGHT to pollute?

    Did the Supreme Court find for or against business? It's a simple yes or no.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    However I suspect that the govt put up one hell of a case.

    Like maybe had the Constitution on their side this time.
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    It's a simple yes or no.

    Seems like Scott's questions are as well.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    They are, but not on point.
    Comic may think I'm being petty, but he gets the point.
  • Scott ButnerScott Butner Senior Member Posts: 3,918 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Did the Supreme Court find for or against business? It's a simple yes or no.

    they found against a SPECIFIC company's (and sub-sector of the industry's) wishes. I don't consider that "anti-business" or anti-industry -- I'm sure those companies, if they thought they could get away with it, would use slave labor, avoid paying their taxes, and dump their ash in the nearest gully, too -- does that mean that regulations that prohibit these practices are "anti-industry?" I think not.
  • tim_stim_s Senior Member Posts: 1,951 Senior Member
    they found against a SPECIFIC company's (and sub-sector of the industry's) wishes. I don't consider that "anti-business" or anti-industry -- I'm sure those companies, if they thought they could get away with it, would use slave labor, avoid paying their taxes, and dump their ash in the nearest gully, too -- does that mean that regulations that prohibit these practices are "anti-industry?" I think not.



    +1..........
    Fly Fishing in Maine - www.flyfishinginmaine.com
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Whether you find this decision to be a good thing or a bad thing isn't pertinent to the point, Scott. It might be the greatest thing not hidden in Kate Upton's shirt for all I know.
    The sole point...I repeat the sole point...is that the Supreme Court did not find for business but sided with the government against business in this decision.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    The sole point...I repeat the sole point...is that the Supreme Court did not find for business but sided with the government against business in this decision.

    Thank you Mr. Obvious. ;)
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • tim_stim_s Senior Member Posts: 1,951 Senior Member
    they did not against business....they found against pollution
    Fly Fishing in Maine - www.flyfishinginmaine.com
  • HextallHextall Senior Member Posts: 9,520 Senior Member
    I'll interpret this thread's existence for you animals.

    Basically this threads is some kind of nut punch to Comic who somewhere in some thread wrote something to the effect that this Supreme court has not ruled against business. So Steven finds one case where the supreme court ruled against a business (notice the "a" that I included) and now he can say that he'll never read another word about this supreme court not ruling against business (notice the lack of "a").

    So now we can lock this thread up, give Comic some nut salve, have a little more sympathy for Steven's ex-wife and move on to more important things like booing Cano and sledding videos.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    tim_s wrote: »
    they did not against business....they found against pollution

    Oh please.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Hextall wrote: »
    I'll interpret this thread's existence for you animals.

    Basically this threads is some kind of nut punch to Comic who somewhere in some thread wrote something to the effect that this Supreme court has not ruled against business. So Steven finds one case where the supreme court ruled against a business (notice the "a" that I included) and now he can say that he'll never read another word about this supreme court not ruling against business (notice the lack of "a").

    So now we can lock this thread up, give Comic some nut salve, have a little more sympathy for Steven's ex-wife and move on to more important things like booing Cano and sledding videos.

    Succint, but not accurate. This is a ruling that affects much of an industry and the Supreme Court was well aware of this fact. So the "it's a ruling against 'a' business" is incorrect.
    As for the Queen of Pain, just send lithium.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,584 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    They are, but not on point.
    Comic may think I'm being petty, but he gets the point.

    As long as you realize you are being a child, I'm good.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    I just realize you think I am.
    I just trolled for three pages.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,584 Senior Member
    And trolling is not the act of a child or mental midget?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Mental midget = time spent on a flyfishing board talking about politics.

    Next?

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.