Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘Volokh Conspiracy’

… Relief from the Supremes [#Ohio voting case]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,October 2nd,2014

.. and , for some expert commentary , from the Volokh Conspiracy , Professor Jonathan Adler [ of Case Western Reserve University , right here in Cleveland , Ohio] …

.. [h/t —]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

September 29 at 8:05 PM

Earlier today  the U.S. Supreme Court put on hold a district court injunction against changes to Ohio’s voting rules.  Splitting 5-4, the Court granted the order sought by the state, overturning the judgment of a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  No opinions accompanied the order.  A petition for rehearing en banc remains pending before the Sixth Circuit.

As a consequence of the Court’s order, recently enacted changes to Ohio’s voting rules will be in effect for the November elections.  Among the changes are a reduction in the in-person early voting period from 35 days before the election to 28 days, a reduction in weekend voting, and the elimination of nighttime early voting. Here are early reports from SCOTUSBlog, the Columbus Dispatch and the Post’s Robert Barnes.


Posted in body of law, legal opinion, legal question, legal strategy, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Absurdity begets Absurdity …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,October 15th,2013

.. at least , now , we get a chance to whack back at the Climate Science lunatics . After the  judicial fraud in Mass V EPA , we get a chance to get even with those idiots . Their attempts at so – called ” global warming science ” have been debunked . The follow on science behind their pursuit of climate change is not far behind . And now , with the new case ,  Utility Air Reg Group v EPA  , we have a chance to hit back …

… from Professor Jonathan Adler , @ the Volokh Conspiracy …

This morning, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. This is quite significant. Although the grant is limited, it focuses on one of the most important legal questions raised by this litigation, and puts some of the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources in play.

Harvard’s Richard Lazarus comments:

The Court’s jurisdictional ruling is significant in terms of both what the Court granted and did not grant. The regulations the Court has agreed to review represent the Obama Administration’s first major rulemaking to address the emissions of greenhouse gases from major stationary sources across the country. At the same time, the Court declined to review EPA’s determination that greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare and therefore has left intact the government’s current regulation of motor vehicles emissions to address climate change.

I largely agree, but would go farther in certain respects.

Here’s some background (see also my prior posts here and here). Various states, industry groups, and activist organizations had filed cert petitions – nine in total – and others filed amicus briefs (including yours truly) urging the Court to take this case. The Court was asked to consider many different questions, but only agreed to consider one of its own devising. Specifically, the Court granted six of the nine petitions and agreed to consider the following question: “Whether EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.” In other words, the Court wants to know whether the EPA was required to apply Section 165 and Title V of the Act to greenhouse gases once it regulated GHGs from motor vehicles. If not, the EPA need not have rewritten these portions of the Act to avoid the “absurd results” of applying these provisions to carbon dioxide.

In my view, the grant is welcome, despite the limitations. Many of the questions for which industry sought review, such as whether the EPA properly considered the relevant scientific research or set permissible standards for vehicular emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, were not cert worthy. The issue embodied in the Court’s reformulated question presented, on the other hand, most definitely is. While I would have liked the Court to reconsider Massachusetts v. EPA, particularly given that decisions adoption of faulty premises about how the Clean Air Act works, such a grant would have been a heavy lift. The Court does not lightly reconsider its own statutory interpretations. This is still a welcome grant. (That’s my view, however, as I suspect Professor Lazarus disagrees.)

So the Court will not reconsider Mass v. EPA in this case, but the question presented will force the Court to confront the consequences the Mass decision. In particular, this case will force the Court to reconsider the assumption made by Justice Stevens in Mass v. EPA that application of the Clean Air Act to GHGs would not produce absurd results. As we’ve since learned, applying the CAA to GHGs does produce such results, particularly if the regulation of GHGs under Section 202 requires regulation of GHGs under the Clean Air Act’s Title V and PSD provisions. These portions of the Act expressly require the EPA (and state permitting authorities) to regulate more facilities than it could ever hope to have the resources to regulate. The EPA has used this fact to justify rewriting the Act in its regulations, and so the Court’s grant presents the opportunity to question whether the EPA should have at least considered an alternative construction of the Act. In other words, the Court now has the opportunity to force the EPA (and the D.C. Circuit) to adopt an interpretation of the CAA that vindicates the Court’s interpretation in Mass v. EPA by avoiding the absurd results EPA’s approach has generated. We’ll see whether the Court actually takes that opportunity.

… LEC here again — the grant of “certiorari” may well be limited , at least at this time . However , indirectly , it gives the Court a chance to revisit the logic behind the science behind the decision , as well as the law .

.. given the reputation of some times that the link may not work , I wanted to include a copy of a [Clean Air Act as Obstacle (Greenhouse Gas regs)] to Professor Adler ‘ s new paper … oops , wrong [lProliferation of GHG Reg under the OC [Adler]]

.. Remember , a great deal of the “ClimateGate” monkeyshines has come out since 2007 , and in the case of the ObamaCrap antics , since 2009 . The Supreme Court cannot ignore that , and that the lack of effect of the greenhouse gases on our climate is clear and undeniable . The Court used that effect the last time in Mass to help rope in the regulation , now the other side can use logic , science , and the law to “cut the rope …”

Posted in constitutional opinion, economic opinion, legal opinion, personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »