Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   US Supreme Court decision. Clean Air: 1 Dirty Coal: 0   (politico.com) divider line 92
    More: Spiffy, Supreme Court, Supreme Court decisions, EPA, Scalia, Natural Resources Defense Council  
•       •       •

3594 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2014 at 3:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-29 02:26:47 PM  
Scalia was especially critical of the majority's opinion that EPA's cost-based allocation is acceptable. It may be the best method, he wrote, but it amounts to an "undemocratic revision of the Clean Air Act."
"The majority reaches its result ('Look Ma, no hands!') without benefit of text, claiming to have identified a remarkable 'gap' in the statute, which it proceeds to fill (contrary to the plain logic of the statute) with cost-benefit analysis - and then, with no pretended textual justification at all, simply extends cost-benefit analysis beyond the scope of the alleged gap," Scalia snarkily wrote. "And trust me, I know about how to pretend to find textual justifications for things."
 
2014-04-29 02:57:31 PM  
Scalia is such a piece of shiat.
 
2014-04-29 02:58:40 PM  
Thomas was also especially critical of the majority's opinion that EPA's cost-based allocation is acceptable. It may be the best method, he wrote, but it amounts to an "undemocratic revision of the Clean Air Act."
"The majority reaches its result ('Look Ma, no hands!') without benefit of text, claiming to have identified a remarkable 'gap' in the statute, which it proceeds to fill (contrary to the plain logic of the statute) with cost-benefit analysis - and then, with no pretended textual justification at all, simply extends cost-benefit analysis beyond the scope of the alleged gap," Thomas snarkily wrote. "And trust me, Scalia knows about how to pretend to find textual justifications for things."
 
2014-04-29 03:10:23 PM  
Those solidly red states were just about to clean up their emissions.  The EPA didn't have to get involved,  Really just give them a few more years for, ummm, feasibility studies and environmental impact analysis.
 
2014-04-29 03:30:52 PM  

EvilEgg: Those solidly red states were just about to clean up their emissions.  The EPA didn't have to get involved,  Really just give them a few more years for, ummm, feasibility studies and environmental impact analysis.


Look, no one is going to buy power if you are polluting the environment.  The market will take care of everything, making sure the cheap and dirty guys go out of business while giving all their business to the clean power producers.  Duh.
 
2014-04-29 03:37:00 PM  
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the ruling

youdontsay.jpg
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-29 03:57:47 PM  
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas

corporate pieces of shiat.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-29 03:59:48 PM  

Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Look, no one is going to buy power if you are polluting the environment. The market will take care of everything, making sure the cheap and dirty guys go out of business while giving all their business to the clean power producers. Duh.


It's all magic...

images.elephantjournal.com
 
2014-04-29 04:04:05 PM  

d23: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas

corporate pieces of shiat.


came here to say. Leaving satisfied
 
2014-04-29 04:05:32 PM  
Of COURSE Scalia dissented!  If we start cleaning up pollution, that shiatstain could be the next thing to go!
 
2014-04-29 04:08:16 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Thomas was also especially critical of the majority's opinion that EPA's cost-based allocation is acceptable. It may be the best method, he wrote, but it amounts to an "undemocratic revision of the Clean Air Act."
"The majority reaches its result ('Look Ma, no hands!') without benefit of text, claiming to have identified a remarkable 'gap' in the statute, which it proceeds to fill (contrary to the plain logic of the statute) with cost-benefit analysis - and then, with no pretended textual justification at all, simply extends cost-benefit analysis beyond the scope of the alleged gap," Thomas snarkily wrote. "And trust me, Scalia knows about how to pretend to find textual justifications for things."


x1.fjcdn.com
 
2014-04-29 04:09:48 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the ruling

youdontsay.jpg


Indeed. This is my shocked face.
 
2014-04-29 04:10:22 PM  
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the ruling

Of course they did.
 
2014-04-29 04:12:35 PM  
www.motherjones.com
Disapproves.
 
2014-04-29 04:12:43 PM  

d23: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas

corporate pieces of shiat.


When will they be impeached? Seriously, their behavior on numerous occasions has crossed the lines of propriety. At least the other justices occasionally recuse themselves, but these two? Calling them shiat is an insult to feces.
 
2014-04-29 04:15:24 PM  
Scalia is disgusting.  Even his constructionist/originalist  arguments are self-contradictory and flip-flop based on the prevailing conservative opinion of the time, and he seems pathologically incapable of not parroting trite political claptrap "Marxism!" in what is supposed to be objective rulings on the merits.
 
2014-04-29 04:16:10 PM  

Theaetetus: Scalia was especially critical of the majority's opinion that EPA's cost-based allocation is acceptable. It may be the best method, he wrote, but it amounts to an "undemocratic revision of the Clean Air Act."
"The majority reaches its result ('Look Ma, no hands!') without benefit of text, claiming to have identified a remarkable 'gap' in the statute, which it proceeds to fill (contrary to the plain logic of the statute) with cost-benefit analysis - and then, with no pretended textual justification at all, simply extends cost-benefit analysis beyond the scope of the alleged gap," Scalia snarkily wrote. "And trust me, I know about how to pretend to find textual justifications for things."


derekwinnert.com
 
2014-04-29 04:18:16 PM  
Amazing we actually won one.
 
2014-04-29 04:20:37 PM  

meat0918: Amazing we actually won one.


I've long stopped trusting the Supreme Court from making any sort of rational decision.  I guess it can still happen, on occasion.
 
2014-04-29 04:20:38 PM  

meat0918: Amazing we actually won one.


You know, the current Court isn't my favorite, but I'm amazed on how they've ruled on DOMA, Obamacare, and, now, the EPA. I wish they were more liberal, but there have been a few major victories for the Left on the current Court.
 
2014-04-29 04:22:07 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the ruling

Of course they did.


I agree that Scalia is a pile of weasel shiat, but mark my words - he will hold in favor of privacy in the contents of your smartphone, and that the results of a warrantless search must be excluded from evidence. For some reason, he's good on that sort of thing.
 
2014-04-29 04:24:14 PM  

GoodDoctorB: Theaetetus: Scalia was especially critical of the majority's opinion that EPA's cost-based allocation is acceptable. It may be the best method, he wrote, but it amounts to an "undemocratic revision of the Clean Air Act."
"The majority reaches its result ('Look Ma, no hands!') without benefit of text, claiming to have identified a remarkable 'gap' in the statute, which it proceeds to fill (contrary to the plain logic of the statute) with cost-benefit analysis - and then, with no pretended textual justification at all, simply extends cost-benefit analysis beyond the scope of the alleged gap," Scalia snarkily wrote. "And trust me, I know about how to pretend to find textual justifications for things."

[derekwinnert.com image 440x246]


i218.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-29 04:26:47 PM  

BMulligan: Tyrone Slothrop: Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the ruling

Of course they did.

I agree that Scalia is a pile of weasel shiat, but mark my words - he will hold in favor of privacy in the contents of your smartphone, and that the results of a warrantless search must be excluded from evidence. For some reason, he's good on that sort of thing.


Yeah, he's definitely good w/ privacy stuff, but man, that is  it.
 
2014-04-29 04:28:59 PM  

BMulligan: Tyrone Slothrop: Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the ruling

Of course they did.

I agree that Scalia is a pile of weasel shiat, but mark my words - he will hold in favor of privacy in the contents of your smartphone, and that the results of a warrantless search must be excluded from evidence. For some reason, he's good on that sort of thing.


I just read about that case. Jee-ZUSS. According to the highest court in PA, your smartphone isn't a "telephone", it's a "device", because reasons?

// "highest" court, indeed
 
2014-04-29 04:40:23 PM  
Not surprised those two douchebags dissented.
 
2014-04-29 04:41:27 PM  
And yet if your corn field is downwind from Monsanto you can get successfully sued by them.
 
2014-04-29 04:41:33 PM  

Dr Dreidel: BMulligan: Tyrone Slothrop: Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the ruling

Of course they did.

I agree that Scalia is a pile of weasel shiat, but mark my words - he will hold in favor of privacy in the contents of your smartphone, and that the results of a warrantless search must be excluded from evidence. For some reason, he's good on that sort of thing.

I just read about that case. Jee-ZUSS. According to the highest court in PA, your smartphone isn't a "telephone", it's a "device", because reasons?

// "highest" court, indeed


Ya know, I'm as socialist as the socialiest socialist, but that phone one boils down, for me, to if that guy had a locked binder in his car full of printouts of everything on the phone, would the cops need a warrant to open and search that binder?

Treat the phone the same way. (would an unlocked phone be treated as an unlocked binder? probably)

And learn to factory reset quickly I guess, if you're talking about illegal stuff on your phone - if you wouldn't carry around hard copies of evidence of illegal activity, don't do it on your phone.

Basic "spycraft", learn it. Even if you're not doing anything illegal. Assume the only freedom you have anymore is to at least make it *difficult* to catch you doing something.
 
2014-04-29 04:42:27 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Scalia is such a piece of shiat.


Why?  Because of his opinion that the states that do the actual polluting be the ones required to clean it up?
 
2014-04-29 04:42:34 PM  

BMulligan: Tyrone Slothrop: Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the ruling

Of course they did.

I agree that Scalia is a pile of weasel shiat, but mark my words - he will hold in favor of privacy in the contents of your smartphone, and that the results of a warrantless search must be excluded from evidence. For some reason, he's good on that sort of thing.


Stopped clock.
 
2014-04-29 04:45:37 PM  
Alito, Thomas and Scalia on the dissent/"feigning neutral" ruling. I'm shocked. Are these critters old enough to retire or die yet?
 
2014-04-29 04:45:40 PM  

Lord Dimwit: You know, the current Court isn't my favorite, but I'm amazed on how they've ruled on DOMA, Obamacare, and, now, the EPA. I wish they were more liberal, but there have been a few major victories for the Left on the current Court.


I thought about this statement for a while. Then I realized "none of these were close calls." We're giving the conservative majority a cookie for not reaching a partisan outcome in a handful of cases where partisanship would be the only possible justification for coming out the opposite way. And, of course, we're ignoring the dozens of times that they instead scratched that partisan itch and produced laughably bad jurisprudence (Bush v. Gore, Kelo, Citizens United, the Voting Rights Act case, etc.)
 
2014-04-29 04:49:20 PM  

Whodat: And yet if your corn field is downwind from Monsanto you can get successfully sued by them.


*cough*Bullshiat*cough*
 
2014-04-29 04:50:46 PM  

Uzzah: Lord Dimwit: You know, the current Court isn't my favorite, but I'm amazed on how they've ruled on DOMA, Obamacare, and, now, the EPA. I wish they were more liberal, but there have been a few major victories for the Left on the current Court.

I thought about this statement for a while. Then I realized "none of these were close calls." We're giving the conservative majority a cookie for not reaching a partisan outcome in a handful of cases where partisanship would be the only possible justification for coming out the opposite way. And, of course, we're ignoring the dozens of times that they instead scratched that partisan itch and produced laughably bad jurisprudence (Bush v. Gore, Kelo, Citizens United, the Voting Rights Act case, etc.)


Good point. Citizens United, Kelo, the VRA case...all of those made mockeries of our democractic institutions.
 
2014-04-29 04:52:01 PM  

d23: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas

corporate pieces of shiat.


Alito must be up to his eyeballs in coal money to actually recuse himself.
 
2014-04-29 04:53:05 PM  
Thmoas sided with Scalia? I'm shocked. Seriously has anyone ever seen the slit in the back of Thomas's robe, where Scalia's hand controls him?
 
2014-04-29 04:53:14 PM  
Activist judges!
 
2014-04-29 04:55:52 PM  
A 6-2 decision? Not a 5-4 decision?

With regard to Scalia and Thomas, I'm surprised they are even required to show up to work anymore. Its not like everyone doesn't know how they are going to rule from the start anyway. Right?
 
2014-04-29 04:56:13 PM  

Uzzah: Lord Dimwit: You know, the current Court isn't my favorite, but I'm amazed on how they've ruled on DOMA, Obamacare, and, now, the EPA. I wish they were more liberal, but there have been a few major victories for the Left on the current Court.

I thought about this statement for a while. Then I realized "none of these were close calls." We're giving the conservative majority a cookie for not reaching a partisan outcome in a handful of cases where partisanship would be the only possible justification for coming out the opposite way. And, of course, we're ignoring the dozens of times that they instead scratched that partisan itch and produced laughably bad jurisprudence (Bush v. Gore, Kelo, Citizens United, the Voting Rights Act case, etc.)


don't go blaming Kelo on the conservatives. Stevens wrote for that disaster.
 
2014-04-29 05:01:30 PM  

jaerik: Scalia is disgusting.  Even his constructionist/originalist  arguments are self-contradictory and flip-flop based on the prevailing conservative opinion of the time, and he seems pathologically incapable of not parroting trite political claptrap "Marxism!" in what is supposed to be objective rulings on the merits.


I personally think Thomas is worse than Scalia.  Note when the two of them vote differently, Thomas almost always votes against individual liberty and Scalia in favor of it.  That, and his stupid "silent man" shtick is getting really old.
 
2014-04-29 05:04:10 PM  

AntiNerd: A 6-2 decision? Not a 5-4 decision?

With regard to Scalia and Thomas, I'm surprised they are even required to show up to work anymore. Its not like everyone doesn't know how they are going to rule from the start anyway. Right?


Roberts voted with the majority and Alito recused himself (without stating the reason, as is the Supreme Court's practice).
 
2014-04-29 05:05:13 PM  
Robin Hoodie:

don't go blaming Kelo on the conservatives. Stevens wrote for that disaster.

This. Scalia, along with Thomas, O'Connor, and Rhenquest were the dissenting justices.
 
2014-04-29 05:06:03 PM  

Robin Hoodie: Uzzah: Lord Dimwit: You know, the current Court isn't my favorite, but I'm amazed on how they've ruled on DOMA, Obamacare, and, now, the EPA. I wish they were more liberal, but there have been a few major victories for the Left on the current Court.

I thought about this statement for a while. Then I realized "none of these were close calls." We're giving the conservative majority a cookie for not reaching a partisan outcome in a handful of cases where partisanship would be the only possible justification for coming out the opposite way. And, of course, we're ignoring the dozens of times that they instead scratched that partisan itch and produced laughably bad jurisprudence (Bush v. Gore, Kelo, Citizens United, the Voting Rights Act case, etc.)

don't go blaming Kelo on the conservatives. Stevens wrote for that disaster.


Ironically, Kelo's majority was anti-legislating from the bench and gave power to the legislatures.

Anyway, Keystone XL (not to mention countless other non-public utility projects, see: casinos, stadiums, malls, etc...) has shown how BS the outrage about Kelo truly is.
 
2014-04-29 05:08:40 PM  
Yeah both sides are so totally the same.

Do any of you honestly think Bush or any of the current crop of hopeful Republicans would have fought for this?
 
2014-04-29 05:11:59 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Uzzah: Lord Dimwit: You know, the current Court isn't my favorite, but I'm amazed on how they've ruled on DOMA, Obamacare, and, now, the EPA. I wish they were more liberal, but there have been a few major victories for the Left on the current Court.

I thought about this statement for a while. Then I realized "none of these were close calls." We're giving the conservative majority a cookie for not reaching a partisan outcome in a handful of cases where partisanship would be the only possible justification for coming out the opposite way. And, of course, we're ignoring the dozens of times that they instead scratched that partisan itch and produced laughably bad jurisprudence (Bush v. Gore, Kelo, Citizens United, the Voting Rights Act case, etc.)

Good point. Citizens United, Kelo, the VRA case...all of those made mockeries of our democractic institutions.


Hey, nothing wrong with Kelo. The concept behind eminent domain is great for society, and barring use of eminent domain for mixed public-private projects would have been a real disaster for public planning. You just also have to be active in voting for responsible local government--the problem with local government isn't excessive influence of money, it's the total disinterest of the voters (ironic, given how much more important to your life local government is than the President).
 
2014-04-29 05:14:58 PM  

whidbey: Yeah both sides are so totally the same.

Do any of you honestly think Bush or any of the current crop of hopeful Republicans would have fought for this?


Given that Bush's EPA issued a regulation that tried to control interstate polution and it was brought up to the SCOTUS with backing from the govt..... yes I honestly think Bush would have fought for this.
 
2014-04-29 05:16:08 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Thomas was also especially critical of the majority's opinion that EPA's cost-based allocation is acceptable. It may be the best method, he wrote, but it amounts to an "undemocratic revision of the Clean Air Act."
"The majority reaches its result ('Look Ma, no hands!') without benefit of text, claiming to have identified a remarkable 'gap' in the statute, which it proceeds to fill (contrary to the plain logic of the statute) with cost-benefit analysis - and then, with no pretended textual justification at all, simply extends cost-benefit analysis beyond the scope of the alleged gap," Thomas snarkily wrote. "And trust me, Scalia knows about how to pretend to find textual justifications for things."


Oh my god. That took me a second, but was the best thing I've seen on Fark all day.
 
2014-04-29 05:17:14 PM  

Saiga410: whidbey: Yeah both sides are so totally the same.

Do any of you honestly think Bush or any of the current crop of hopeful Republicans would have fought for this?

Given that Bush's EPA issued a regulation that tried to control interstate polution and it was brought up to the SCOTUS with backing from the govt..... yes I honestly think Bush would have fought for this.


So why do we need this if Enviro President Bush (not) passed one already? Could it be it was a watered-down piece of crap?
 
2014-04-29 05:18:43 PM  
Antonin Scalia - One of the worst SCOTUS justices ever
Clarence Thomas - One of the most corrupt justices ever - How do we let his wife take hundreds of thousands dollars of "Access" payments for people with cases that go before SCOTUS. It's the most out and out bribe that exists in the US today.
 
2014-04-29 05:19:09 PM  
At this point I'm convinced that Scalia is cartoonishly evil.  Just a negative reactionary.  If something is done in the interest of the public welfare, he only hears welfare and votes against it.
 
2014-04-29 05:21:38 PM  

d23: Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas

corporate pieces of shiat.


Those two really need to go away.  They are both a very bad joke.
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report