pageok
pageok
pageok
Yet One More Bush EPA Air Rule Goes Down:

This morning, in a lengthy per curiam opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted petitions of review filed by states and environmental groups against primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter and remanded the standards to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the same time, the court denied both industry and environmental petitions challenging the NAAQS for coarse particulates. The decision in American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA is here.

As I have noted before, it is remarkable how poorly the Bush Administration's air pollution regulations have fared in federal court, even before the relatively conservative D.C. Circuit. In related news, yesterday the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari seeking review of the D.C. Circuit's decision invalidating the Bush administration's regulations governing mercury emissions.

Eli Rabett (www):
Maybe they didn't do well, because they were a load of cod's wallop. What they did do is buy time.
2.24.2009 1:31pm
ChrisTS (mail):
"Cod's wallop" - thank you, Eli. As a born and bred New Englander, that phrase will always resonate with me.
2.24.2009 7:45pm
Craig Oren (mail):
What is remarkable is the composition of the panel (one Reagan appointment, one Clinton appointment and one Bush II appointment). Even the conservative judges on the D.C. Circuit seem underwhelmed by the Bush EPA's rationales.

In this case, the court found that EPA had not adequately explained its refusal to tighten the key "annual" standard for particulate matter, or its decision not to set an especially stringent standard to protect against visibility degradation. The court seemed especially troubled by the agency's attempts to explain why the agency did not follow the recommendations of its own staff or of the independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Board

What is a cod's wallop, anyway? I'm from New York, not New England?
2.24.2009 9:48pm
eyesay:
Remarkable? The Bush administration was utterly and shamelessly lawless. Even before his term of office, Bush operatives were rioting in the courthouses of Florida to prevent the counting of ballots, many of which were never counted even once because automated ballot counting machines improperly rejected them. Before that, Bush operatives were illegally turning black rural voters away from the polls. Before that, Bush operative Katherine Harris hired a private corporation to illegally strip 50,000 voters from the polls. The Bush administration illegally fired U.S. attorneys for either not working on meritless cases against Democrats or for working on cases against Republicans. The Bush administration harmed national security by leaking the secret status of Valerie Plame in retaliation for a piece her husband wrote in the New York Times. The Bush administration repeatedly broke laws against torture and lied about it. The Bush administration was utterly corrupt and rotten and the only remarkable thing is that the American people tolerated it for so long.
2.25.2009 9:51pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
And don't forget their selling of underprivileged babies to tuna fish canneries for spare parts!
2.26.2009 3:44pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.