About Me

My photo
This site is the inspiration of a former reporter/photographer for one of New England's largest daily newspapers and for various magazines. The intent is to direct readers to interesting political articles, and we urge you to visit the source sites. Any comments may be noted on site or directed to KarisChaf at gmail.

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Supreme Court says regulatory law means whatever EPA says it means, today -- By Mark Tapscott, The Washington Examiner

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to accept an appeal from Arch Coal of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's reversal of its 2007 issuance of a 2011 Clean Water Act permit for the company's Spruce Mine operation in West Virginia. (Thinkstock)Ever heard of the U.S. Supreme Court's Plessy v Ferguson ruling in 1896? That's the one where the guys in the black robes upheld "separate but equal" *accommodations on public facilities like trains.

Or how about the Dred Scott case in 1857? Most Americans have probably heard of that one because it said slaves had no standing to sue in federal court because they weren't citizens.

There have been other terrible Supreme Court rulings, but those two stand out on everybody's lists. Fortunately, the nation's highest court can and does undo its previous mistakes in subsequent rulings.

Now comes Arch Coal

On Monday, the court declined to accept an appeal from Arch Coal of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's reversal of its 2007 issuance of a 2011 Clean Water Act permit for the company's Spruce Mine operation in West Virginia.

By refusing to hear the appeal, the court upheld EPA's authority to change its mind on a regulatory permit decision, even though doing so inflicts substantial financial and other losses on appellants.

The court's denial also creates a damaging new regulatory uncertainty because it casts potential doubt on the legitimacy on any federal permitting decision, not just those by EPA under the Clean Water Act.

Carte blanche regulation?

Higher costs and regulatory uncertainty may not be the worst results of the decision, according to Dan Kish, senior vice president of the Institute for Energy Research.

"The Court has decided it agrees with a lower court that said the EPA can veto a permit if EPA changes its mind. This gives EPA too much deference and ignores EPA's dishonest dealings.

"One of EPA's head regulators is now in jail because of his fraudulent activities and EPA refuses to provide Congress and the American people with the science it uses to justify expensive regulations while using fake aliases and outside email addresses to avoid FOIA.

"Anyone familiar with EPA’s growing record of fabricating whatever justification it takes to gain bigger budgets and more power knows this is a ‘blank check’ for an agency whose actions now threaten everything anyone does anywhere, according to the Supreme Court’s interpretation."

 (Click link below to read more)
READ MORE Sphere: Related Content

No comments:

Post a Comment