McConnell Urges States Not Obey EPA On Coal

[BotanyBoy]

The Governor of Wisconsin's opinion is duly noted and dismissed as *gasp* his opinion. He's more than welcome to fight the EPA in court.

You have to be understanding....he doesn't understand fact vs opinion.

See to vetteman, GOP= fact and DNC= wrong opinions.....he doesn't go any further than that, ever.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You have to be understanding....he doesn't understand fact vs opinion.

If fairness to the fatass Marine, it's not just him. Most of the RWCJ cannot (or willnot) distinguish between fact and opinion.

This is why we laugh at them, and take pity on their children.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So you don't think the state Attorney General wasn't involved, eh? Well UD, Obama's own law professor says it's unconstitutional, but you know better, right?

http://today.law.harvard.edu/why-epa-climate-plan-is-unconstitutional/

His opinion is also not anything more than an opinion, one that is disputed by not one but two of his fellow constitutional law professors at Harvard Law.

Wisconsin can take the EPA to court. Would you like to wager on the outcome?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Did you read his rejoinder to those two fellow Profs?

Actually several states will be suing.

I read the article, it was full of his opinions as to why he believes that the EPA actions are unconstitutional. His fellow professors disagree, rather strongly in fact. The opinion of one law professor does not a winnable constitutional challenge make.

Let them sue the EPA. I look forward to the wailing and gnashing of teeth when they lose their challenge.

Tribe has a history of challenging the EPA and losing.

Tribe has represented industry clients in several notable environmental cases. In 2000, Tribe wrote an amicus brief on behalf of General Electric in Whitman v. American Trucking, in which he argued that the Clean Air Act's National Ambient Air Quality Standards program was unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine. The Supreme Court rejected this challenge by a vote of 9-0, with Justice Scalia writing the Court's opinion upholding the program.

Tribe represented General Electric in its defense against its liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("Superfund"), in which GE and Tribe unsuccessfully argued that the act unconstitutionally violated General Electric's due process rights.

In 2014, Tribe was retained to represent Peabody Energy, the nation's largest coal producer in a suit against the Environmental Protection Agency. Tribe argued that EPA's use of the Clean Air Act to implement its Clean Power Plan was unconstitutional. Tribe's legal analysis has been criticized by other legal commentators, including fellow Harvard Law School professors Richard J. Lazarus and Jodie Freeman (who described his conclusion as "wholly without merit"), as well as by Georgetown University Law Center professor Lisa Heinzerling, and current director of the American Law Institute and former dean of New York University School of Law Richard Revesz.

 

[phrodeau]

Right-wingers never manage to make direct quotes.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mark_j]

Tribe's Wall Street Journal article:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laurence-tribe-the-epas-clean-power-plan-is-unconstitutional-1419293203

Article is bullshit if you can't read it.. Since I don't want to subscribe nor give any log in information to WSJ Tribes opinion doesn't mean shit.

However this first line that I can see is this

"The EPA acts as though it has the legislative authority to re-engineer the nation’s electric generating system and power grid. It does not."

Since the EPA does not (or is not supposed) to act unilaterally the only way this could be true is if someone told them to.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mark_j]

I see it just fine. Try this one:

http://www.masseygail.com/pdf/Tribe-Peabody_111(d)_Comments_(filed).pdf

Here's his testimony before Congress this month:

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150317/103073/HHRG-114-IF03-Wstate-TribeL-20150317-U1.pdf

See edit above..

I'll read these later

 

[mark_j]

I see it just fine. Try this one:

http://www.masseygail.com/pdf/Tribe-Peabody_111(d)_Comments_(filed).pdf

Here's his testimony before Congress this month:

http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150317/103073/HHRG-114-IF03-Wstate-TribeL-20150317-U1.pdf

Here's the problem with all of this. Tribe contends that the EPA has no authority to unilaterally declare and enforce a new set of regulations and are therefore acting in a matter not consistant with thier mandate. IF this were actually true, Tribe might have a case.

He contends that there is some ambiguity in the language of sections 111 & 112 which DO NOT give the EPA the authority to declare CO2 from a stationary source a pollutant.

Myself and others are saying that Tribe is barking up the wrong tree.

The EPA was DIRECTED to change the regulations.

See this: President-Obama-Climate-Action-Plan_June-2013.pdf

From Section I pg 6,

"Cutting Carbon Pollution from Power Plants: Power plants are the largest concentrated sourceof emissions in the United States, together accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. We have already set limits for arsenic, mercury, and lead, but there is
no federal rule to prevent power plants from releasing as much carbon pollution as they want. Many states, local governments, and companies have taken steps to move to cleaner electricity sources. More than 35 states have renewable energy targets in place, and more than 25 have set energy efficiency targets."

and

"To accomplish these goals, President Obama is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Environmental Protection Agency to work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution standards for both new and existing power plants. This work will build on the successful first-term effort to develop greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. In developing the standards, the President has asked the Environmental Protection Agency to build on state leadership, provide flexibility, and take advantage of a wide range of energy sources and technologies including many actions in this plan." (Emphasis is mine)

Granted, I'm no constitutional or legal scholar, but from my understanding the Administration is well within its pervue to direct the EPA to write the regulations declaring that carbon is a pollutant and that these are the regulations to curb said emmissions from power plants.

Whether or not this can be actually enforced without Congressional approval is another matter.

Side note: I question the declaration of Carbon as a "pollutant" since it exists in just about every organic compound found on earth. To be somewhat facetious about it, that would make our very existance a "pollutant".

But that is a debate for another time.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Tribe can say whatever he wants, that doesn't make him right. He says what he's paid to say, at the moment by Peabody Energy — the world’s largest private sector coal company.

His record of going against the EPA speaks for itself. The fact that his arguments are being called "wholly without merit" by his peers says more. Hell he tried pretty much the exact same tactic in an amicus brief to SCOTUS in 2000 for General Electric. The EPA won the decision 9-0.

But you go ahead, hitch your wagon to that lame horse.

edit: The picture of Tribe starts to become more and more clear...

Tribe has also done work on behalf of William Koch opposing the Cape Wind project, which would be the first offshore wind farm in the United States. His Harvard Law School page that lists potential conflicts of interest shows him to be serving as counsel for the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. The billionaire Koch brothers’ other brother, William Koch, has contributed over $5 million to the Alliance because he is concerned that the turbines would impact the view from his Nantucket estate, though they will be 5.6 miles offshore.