A rare oral argument on emergency applications challenging Biden administration pollution rules underscores how much earlier the justices are taking up complex legal disputes—and the costs of doing so
An aside for Court enthusiasts: tomorrow morning's argument in Bissonnette v LaPage Bakeries is the third in a series of Federal Arbitration Act challenges brought on behalf of workers by the awesome Jennifer Bennett of Gupta Wessler. Prior to Bennett's win in New Prime v Oliveira, the common wisdom was this Court was one of the friendliest to employers, especially in arbitration claims. Bennett started to contradict that with her win in New Prime, then followed-up with another big win in Southwest Airlines v Saxon. Even if you aren't that interested, she's a force in oral argument at 1 First Street.
Thank you for filling in my very limited knowledge of this EPA case. I’m old enough to remember the “acid rain” cases of the past. Allowing the scientists at the EPA and other departments to decide the specifications of these rules saved the limestone streams of the Appalachians and all the downstream watersheds. I’m hoping this Court, and Congress, don’t consider themselves to be the experts in these rulings and laws. You have given me the reason to do more research.
"affirmatively premature .." is far more than a violation of appellate integrity, not that the rigged/MAGA Circuit courts display any more dignity than the Roberts Robe Robbers themselves. It's a violation of the precautionary principle, an environmentalist's version of the Hippocratic Oath. And if you would like to know what John Locke's nondelegation doctrine actually says, I suggest Victor Nuovo from Middlebury College.
Gorsuch, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Alito: Their reactionary zero-sum jurisprudence, steeped in perpetual victimhood -- Anita Hill and Christine Ford cannot speak to us like that! -- remains the moral equivalent of a blocked storm drain finally releasing decades of pent-up sewage. Before we know it, the upper Hudson River will be chock full of PCBs again, and little kids will set it on fire.
Unelected for life is tyranny. Impeach, on the next national plebiscite. There are waaay more of us than them. John Roberts destroys ballots like a degenerate gambler dropping win tickets that never win on the floor of the betting parlor. ... Hmm, I might just try the #1 horse, Up Yours, at 100-1odds. Up Yours it is, John. Like African American voters and defendants (VegavTekoh), long odds are all the environment has left.
Do you think the supreme court is more likely to accept emergency appeals in the case of nationwide effects from a case that could have been brought in multiple circuits?
It's my understanding that certain kinds of cases have to go to the DC circuit. It would be interesting to know if the court is less likely to take up those cases on an emergency basis.
Please forgive my failure to research this question, but how is it that these cases come from the appeals courts? ("A number of states whose plans were rejected brought an array of suits in seven different regional court of appeals, challenging the EPA’s actions in rejecting their state plans.")
I’m a newcomer to this subject but definitely find it fascinating after the horrific overturning of Roe. Thank you for sharing your incredible expertise about the Court. Now I have to research what determines whether a specific State is downwind or upwind.
An aside for Court enthusiasts: tomorrow morning's argument in Bissonnette v LaPage Bakeries is the third in a series of Federal Arbitration Act challenges brought on behalf of workers by the awesome Jennifer Bennett of Gupta Wessler. Prior to Bennett's win in New Prime v Oliveira, the common wisdom was this Court was one of the friendliest to employers, especially in arbitration claims. Bennett started to contradict that with her win in New Prime, then followed-up with another big win in Southwest Airlines v Saxon. Even if you aren't that interested, she's a force in oral argument at 1 First Street.
Thank you for filling in my very limited knowledge of this EPA case. I’m old enough to remember the “acid rain” cases of the past. Allowing the scientists at the EPA and other departments to decide the specifications of these rules saved the limestone streams of the Appalachians and all the downstream watersheds. I’m hoping this Court, and Congress, don’t consider themselves to be the experts in these rulings and laws. You have given me the reason to do more research.
"affirmatively premature .." is far more than a violation of appellate integrity, not that the rigged/MAGA Circuit courts display any more dignity than the Roberts Robe Robbers themselves. It's a violation of the precautionary principle, an environmentalist's version of the Hippocratic Oath. And if you would like to know what John Locke's nondelegation doctrine actually says, I suggest Victor Nuovo from Middlebury College.
Gorsuch, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Alito: Their reactionary zero-sum jurisprudence, steeped in perpetual victimhood -- Anita Hill and Christine Ford cannot speak to us like that! -- remains the moral equivalent of a blocked storm drain finally releasing decades of pent-up sewage. Before we know it, the upper Hudson River will be chock full of PCBs again, and little kids will set it on fire.
Unelected for life is tyranny. Impeach, on the next national plebiscite. There are waaay more of us than them. John Roberts destroys ballots like a degenerate gambler dropping win tickets that never win on the floor of the betting parlor. ... Hmm, I might just try the #1 horse, Up Yours, at 100-1odds. Up Yours it is, John. Like African American voters and defendants (VegavTekoh), long odds are all the environment has left.
"I thought Brett was going to kill me."
--Christine Blasey Ford
Do you think the supreme court is more likely to accept emergency appeals in the case of nationwide effects from a case that could have been brought in multiple circuits?
It's my understanding that certain kinds of cases have to go to the DC circuit. It would be interesting to know if the court is less likely to take up those cases on an emergency basis.
Please forgive my failure to research this question, but how is it that these cases come from the appeals courts? ("A number of states whose plans were rejected brought an array of suits in seven different regional court of appeals, challenging the EPA’s actions in rejecting their state plans.")
I’m a newcomer to this subject but definitely find it fascinating after the horrific overturning of Roe. Thank you for sharing your incredible expertise about the Court. Now I have to research what determines whether a specific State is downwind or upwind.