Justice Antonin Scalia died February 13, 2016 and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts acted swiftly, waiting less than a day after the EPA’s response brief to side with the Obama administration dismissing an earlier 5-4 ruling SCOTUS ruling that President Obama’s global warming regulations are illegal. Worse yet, he acted unilaterally, electing to reject the request himself, and not take it to the full court, which may have led to a 4-4 split.
Roberts rejected the request of 20 states to stay the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards rule, adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency three years ago. This means the regulation remains in effect while a legal battle continues over whether the EPA properly weighed costs and benefits in drafting the controversial regulation.
The administration’s initiative, which is still in the planning stages, requires states to develop plans for shifting away from fossil-fuel power plants in favor of alternative forms of energy. It also aims at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide at existing plants by about a third by 2030.
The Clean Power Plan is an essential part of Obama’s pledge to cut the country’s contribution to global warming, because the electric-power sector of the economy supposedly emits 30 to 40 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gases. Under the EPA plan, states can draw up their own plans or choose the agency’s plan.
Such action on the part of Roberts is exactly how you and I have lost control over our liberty. Rather than side with the States in this case, he sided with an unconstitutional agency of the federal government; the EPA in this situation.
The Tenth Amendment makes it very clear that the powers not given to the United States, belongs to the states or to the people. That means you and I are to be the final arbiters over our sovereignty, not the EPA, the SCOTUS or the state.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to C. Hammond, July 1821: “When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …“
In this case, Jefferson was talking about King George III and the arbitrary rules he forced upon the Colonies before the War for Independence. Sadly, the SCOTUS, and Roberts in particular, are operating under another set of ‘arbitrary rules’ aptly named “Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.”
And while not unconstitutional, they do deny the plaintiffs in this case their constitutional right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” as stated in the First Amendment. because should the states file again, the SCOTUS won’t hear the argument because Roberts has already ruled on it.