From Barrett's dissent:
In so doing, the Court grants emergency relief in a fact-intensive and highly technical case without fully engaging with both the relevant law and the voluminous record.
Basically what the current US supreme court majority does to sway many cases in whatever way they feel like: ignore the way the court is supposed to work, ignore or diminish contrary evidence and push their own views.
Barrett being the sane one here is surprising. Although maybe it's just token dissent, since they already have the majority without her.
Lol at this point it's just fucking ridiculous
I don't know about all of you, but I love me some smokestack smoke drifting over my neighborhood.
I wish i had stupid amounts of money just to troll the fuck out of these corrupt idiots and build factories strategically placed to spew putrid and toxic pollution in their general direction so they can have a taste of the type of shit they expect average citizens to endure.
It's really just sad, because it, once again, puts those with less financial means at a disadvantage. The rich can afford to live far from the smokestacks, while the poor (often minorities and immigrants) have to live near the factories and in turn compromise the health and futures of their kids and themselves.
It's like this court is determined to send the US as far back in time as possible. Not just on this issue, but pretty much every issue they consider.
In turn compromise the health and futures of their kids and themselves.
For-profit healthcare: 🤑
It's no longer a Supreme Court. It's a Republikkklown court.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The rule is intended to restrict smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas with smog-causing pollution.
The Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has increasingly reined in the powers of federal agencies, including the EPA, in recent years.
The court is currently weighing whether to overturn its 40-year-old Chevron decision, which has been the basis for upholding a wide range of regulations on public health, workplace safety and consumer protections.
Three energy-producing states — Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia — have challenged the air pollution rule, along with the steel industry and other groups, calling it costly and ineffective.
Those states are Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.
Ground-level ozone, which forms when industrial pollutants chemically react in the presence of sunlight, can cause respiratory problems, including asthma and chronic bronchitis.
The original article contains 608 words, the summary contains 146 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News