I don't think the EPA would disagree with you. They repeatedly assessed costs in the lead up to the release of the final rule. The EPA considers the best available technologies and associated costs in achieving pollution reductions, BUT only after it does an endangerment finding, where they assess "does this pollution pose a significant effect on human health?" and decide if the source should be regulated.

What this ruling does is require the EPA to assess costs when doing the endangerment finding rather than later on in the regulatory process (for power plants only btw, other sources will still follow the previous procedure). That's my interpretation anyways.


Its not the end of the world, it just delays implementation of the Mercury and air toxics rules AGAIN (They've been looking at this issue since the early 90s I think). The other problem is the difficulty in assessing costs before you've even developed rules or taken a look at the available technologies. Any number you come up with is going to be simply pulled out of your ass.

6/29/2015 1:49:11 PM

yeah whether or not it's problematic or hazardous is a separate issue from whether or not it's worth solving or mitigating.

6/29/2015 5:52:25 PM

Quote :

"i have a feeling that a lot of people who have a problem with the supreme court interpreting "by the state" will have no problem with the court interpreting "appropriate" in regards to the EPA decision"

Not this person. A ballot referendum may be able to enact a law, but it's hard to suggest that such a referendum was done "by the legislators" except by the most torturous of logic.

6/29/2015 10:44:31 PM

the epa rule was a ballot referendum?

6/30/2015 11:31:19 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/13/supreme-court-rejects-case-challenging-key-white-house-air-pollution-regulation/

As I understand it, the Mercury and Air toxics rule will be implemented even as the EPA revises its cost estimations that the Supreme Court required. Basically dismissing an appeal for a stay of the rule.

6/14/2016 11:21:53 AM

Quote :

"Trump is expected to nominate either Neil Gorsuch or Thomas Hardiman to the Supreme Court bloom.bg/2kns6aQ"

What do we have on them?

Don's Press Secretary just said the default is that if you are qualified you get confirmed so that's good news.

1/31/2017 1:40:27 PM

Could be interesting. If he names someone too extreme Dems could block/filibuster the nomination with the SCOTUS confirmation votes standing at 60, however there's always the possibility that the Right can rewrite this rule to a simple majority. Dems screwed themselves with this precedent during the Obama administration, though that was for lower court appointees.

1/31/2017 1:50:25 PM

From what I understand, Hardiman is a little to the right of Garland, if that. Gorsuch is basically Scalia 2.0. I think based on everything he's said and Bannon's influence, it's pretty obvious who he'll pick.

1/31/2017 1:58:05 PM

no Napolitano, no care

1/31/2017 6:36:25 PM

that dude is a joke

1/31/2017 6:51:01 PM

What happened to the Heritage Foundation?

1/31/2017 6:52:24 PM

What do you mean? Both of these guys were on the vetted list from the Heritage Foundation.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-adds-to-list-of-potential-supreme-court-justice-picks

[Edited on January 31, 2017 at 6:59 PM. Reason : Hardiman would be a solid choice though of the two and I wouldn't complain]

1/31/2017 6:57:46 PM

Oh I wouldn't have expected him to be on that list. He seems ok for a "conservative" pick.

1/31/2017 7:04:55 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-supreme-court-justice-mcdonald-234352

Here is an interesting article about how the list came about if you're interested.

Yeah, from what I've read about him he'd be more moderate though I suspect to maintain status quo they replace Scalia with Gorsuch (who is very similar ideologically).

1/31/2017 7:07:15 PM

Gorsuch

1/31/2017 8:05:19 PM

Not one to fight IMO. Sure he's another Scalia but he is highly qualified.

Any time after the midterms in 2018 they would have every right to delay delay delay just like the GOP did with Garland if they play nice here (though I understand the political climate right now is... tense).

** for the record I didn't watch what I'm sure was a clownshoes presentation unbecoming of the gravity of the choice.

1/31/2017 8:22:02 PM

oh noes, an originalist

1/31/2017 8:31:19 PM

I'm really not into the, "wait til after this date to oppose" line of thinking, especially after the Garland nomination

it's time to show a backbone

1/31/2017 11:04:46 PM

they should obstruct because we really need the voters to weigh in

1/31/2017 11:09:05 PM

Senate Democrats should refuse to hold a confirmation hearing on Gorsuch until Garland has had his.

2/1/2017 12:26:27 AM

None of that will happen.

I'm also in the 'pick your battles' camp, and I'm not sure this is one that the Dems should dig their heels in on. Being obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist only makes them look like the babies that the Republicans acted like during Obama's administration; only with less power.

Gorsuch seems highly qualified even if he'd likely sit firmly in the conservative camp (Scalia 2.0), and there'll likely be at least one other SCOTUS battle during Trump's administration. Biggest detractor for me is that this guy is fairly young, so he'll be around awhile.

If you force the Republicans to go with the nuclear option here you only diminish Democratic clout even more down the road, especially if things stay relatively status quo during mid-terms.

You'll probably see vocal pushback and heel dragging, but I expect that he'll eek through with the 60 vote margin if only barely.

2/1/2017 8:03:24 AM

i don't think they should do it, but i think they should float it if only to watch the GOP choke on their hypocrisy for a news cycle

2/1/2017 9:25:47 AM

Not letting extremists stack the court is a battle worth fighting. The Notorious RBG ain't gonna be around forever.

Democrats should not compromise with insanity. I'm sure they will, though.

2/1/2017 10:26:33 AM

FWIW my point was he is not changing the composition of the court as of now and he is going to be confirmed anyway (whether by 60 or majority when dementia-ridden McConnell changes rules) so why not push off the big battle until later when you have the high ground and precedent of deferral in your favor?

2/1/2017 10:48:06 AM

The concept of "compromise" and "high ground" don't exist in politics, these are arm-chair principles.

If compromise and high grounds were actual things, the GOP wouldn't have been so successful in congress gaining seats or down ballot.

The democrats have failed in trying to change the game the past few years, playing it safe doesn't win legislative victories or get marginal voters out. For people to "feel" like congress is doing anything, they need to see a fight, and this is the only way the democrats are going to win back hearts and minds.

What good are sticking to "norms" and "precedents" when you have authoritarian fascists like Bannon and Trump at your door?

2/1/2017 10:53:48 AM

By denying Obama's pick, and letting it go to Trump, they ARE changing the composition of the court. This decision will have consequences for DECADES.

Democrats have been playing the deferral card for ages. Time to sack up. They have public support. Everyone who has been protesting would be behind them on this. It's time for principled opposition right now, not calculated political point scoring.

[Edited on February 1, 2017 at 10:56 AM. Reason : ]

2/1/2017 10:55:12 AM

^^^Because it makes no practical difference? Whether the Republicans nuke the filibuster to get Gorsuch through now, or in a couple years when RBG misses a flu shot, the end result is the same. You think McConnell is going to resist the urge to stack the court 6-3 in their favor for the next 30 years because of a procedural rule? Also, Garland's treatment is still fresh in people's minds, waiting 2 years will just diminish the moral force of the argument to treat Trump's nominee in kind.

Besides all that, the base is behind them and we've learned over the past 8 years that there is no political consequence for obstructionism or hypocrisy. If nothing else, stalling his confirmation eats up clock which is about the only thing Dems have for the next 2-4 years.

[Edited on February 1, 2017 at 10:59 AM. Reason : y'all are quick this morning]

2/1/2017 10:59:04 AM

And what will stonewalling here get them? Nothing. Actually probably worse than that if they force McConnell to go 'nuclear' (and he will). It will make it all the easier to slide in another justice if/when another seat is vacant during Trump's term.

Practically speaking the Democrats have no power to be obstructionist at this stage of this political cycle, all they'll do is make themselves look like petulant children.

[Edited on February 1, 2017 at 11:02 AM. Reason : ]

2/1/2017 11:00:36 AM

I don't even give a fuck what the end result is, so long as it inflicts maximum pain on McConnell. I want to see him stand in front of the cameras everyday and keep saying "They need to treat this appointment like we treated Obama's"

2/1/2017 11:42:39 AM

I still can't believe that Republicans were rewarded by the American voters after having blocked Merrick Garland's nomination.

[Edited on February 1, 2017 at 11:50 AM. Reason : ]

2/1/2017 11:49:49 AM

This would cause no pain to O'Connell or the GOP. All they'd do is point to how obstructionist the Dems are being, which only riles up their base, and then change the confirmation rules.

2/1/2017 11:54:30 AM

Fuck their base, Dems aren't in the Senate to placate them. There is going to be some pain when the media juxtaposes the GOP's horror at being obstructed next to quotes like:

Quote :

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up. […] I promise you." John McCain"

Quote :

"“There is certainly long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. I would note, just recently, that Justice Breyer observed that the vacancy is not impacting the ability of the court to do its job. That’s a debate that we are going to have.” Ted Cruz"

Quote :

""If Hillary Clinton is president it would be completely decent, honorable, and in keeping with the Senate’s constitutional duty to vote against essentially every judicial nominee she names," Ilya Shapiro-Cato Institute."

Quote :

""It is time to shrink the stakes by shrinking the Court itself. Bluntly put, the Supreme Court should be smaller so that it can do less harm. There are two routes to this goal. First, Congress could pass a simple bill to allow the Supreme Court’s membership to gradually decrease to six justices as justices retire or die — returning the Court to its original size when established by the first Judiciary Act of 1789. Alternatively, in the event of a veto, the Senate could adopt a standing rule concerning its own “advice and consent” power that achieves the same thing: no more confirmations until the Court dips below six." Mike Paulsen - Nat. Review"

And on and on it goes.

2/1/2017 1:31:45 PM

after thinking back to all the republicans who pledged to not review any nominations for 4 years if clinton was president, i've changed my mind and want them to obstruct and refuse

2/1/2017 1:45:28 PM

In order for to be obstructionist, you have to have the power to obstruct. Democrats don't have that here if it just takes some legislation to get around them, legislation they set precedence for.

2/1/2017 1:47:37 PM

^ Pretty much. I'm also concerned about a potential bait and switch.

I too would like to see McConnell punched in the face too.

2/1/2017 2:58:58 PM

For all the folks who are arguing that since the R.'s did claimed they would do it, we can do it too. Is that really a justifiable argument in your mind. Also, are you five?

[Edited on February 1, 2017 at 3:17 PM. Reason : This level of obstruction by the D.'s is unprecedented in American politics.]

2/1/2017 3:15:55 PM

so you agree that your party was irresponsible and childish for the last 8 years?

2/1/2017 3:17:48 PM

claimed or actually did?

2/1/2017 3:20:24 PM

wait wait wait

what kind of alternate fact reality are we living in where you are trying to pretend like republicans haven't been obstructionists on every topic for the last 8 years, including refusing to consider obama's supreme court nominee and pledging to block any of clinton's nominees for 4 years?



[Edited on February 1, 2017 at 3:24 PM. Reason : get back to reality dipshit]

2/1/2017 3:24:20 PM

Republicans did not block a supreme court nomination for 8 years. In fact they conferred appointments in 2009 (Sotomayer) and 2010 (Kagan). The R.'s followed a precedent set by VP Biden to block Garland's nomination. Personally, though, I think they should have voted on Garland. Because I am not five and know that two wrongs dont make a right.



[Edited on February 1, 2017 at 3:28 PM. Reason : Elections have consequences.]

[Edited on February 1, 2017 at 3:29 PM. Reason : 1]

2/1/2017 3:26:21 PM

Biden did say that as part of a long speech on potential changes to the process for the next administration.

But wouldn't precedent, by definition, need to involve an actual open spot that was blocked?

2/1/2017 3:34:27 PM

You need to look up what the word precedent means. Talking about what the President or Senate should do in the event of a hypothetical situation that never actually occurred isn't precedent. However, if that's what you're going to call it, then Senate Dems would just be following the "precedent" set by Cruz and McCain to block any SCOTUS nominee of the opposing party

2/1/2017 3:35:14 PM

Bringing out the five year olds.

2/1/2017 3:35:57 PM

Re: precedent set by Biden

There was no nominee to consider

There was no court vacancy

The senate never even took a vote on whether to formalize a rule on delaying nominees before an election.



So yea, it was totally a precedent and is exactly like the Garland nomination /sass and sarcasm

[Edited on February 1, 2017 at 3:36 PM. Reason : Just a shitty speech given on the senate floor, totally precedent setting]

2/1/2017 3:36:00 PM

So we agree then, that there is no precedent and D.'s should vote on this nomination?

2/1/2017 3:43:11 PM

dude, get out of your fake reality and come back

2/1/2017 3:45:34 PM

The GOP set the precedent by not bringing Garland to a vote.

[Edited on February 1, 2017 at 3:46 PM. Reason : The McConnell rule. Can't wait for him to pretend it doesn't exist.]

2/1/2017 3:45:57 PM

1 They should vote because there is no precedent not to this early in an administration.

2 Some GOP members did say they wouldn't vote at all on HRC nominees.

3 This seat should not have been open for Trump to fill

All three true

(Though the political pressure for 1 to not be done is immense)

2/1/2017 3:46:03 PM

They should hold hearings, ask tough questions, and vote. Against cloture. Which is more than Garland ever got. Look, Gorsuch is getting on the court no matter what, the only question is whether or not it will be over the ashes of the filibuster.

2/1/2017 3:46:21 PM

Honestly, who cares if they destroy the filibuster. The GOP has already shown that they are willing to bypass procedure when it's convenient for them. If they don't do it here they are just gonna do it later, it's inevitable.

2/1/2017 3:49:51 PM