• skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 days ago

    The rail route they’re trying to enable starts in rural east Utah, then heads into Colorado and travels mere feet away from the the Colorado river. Contamination of that water source would only affect Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, and Mexico. What could possibly go wrong?

  • TheEtherBunny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    4 days ago

    Oh, the irony of these christofascist lickspittles using the SCOTUS to resurrect dead rulings for big oil payola, when they scream about “activist judges” ruling to preserve laws that preserve some person’s health or wellbeing…

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 days ago

    I LOVE when Unelected Lifetime Officials decide to create their OWN Legislation! It’s a good thing NONE of these Unelected Lifetime Officials have any Conflicts of Interest!

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    The issue at the Supreme Court is whether the agency should have weighed the potential environmental harm of the railroad’s main cargo, both where the oil is drilled in Utah and refined on the Gulf Coast, when it has no regulatory authority over oil production.

    I’m not as down on SCOTUS as the rest of you, excepting Thomas and Alito. They’ve either ruled or refused a couple of dozen cases that could be seen as liberal wins. But this one sounds like a slam dunk for the railroad.

    Sounds like an agency regulating a thing they don’t have authority over. This Court will overrule them in a heartbeat.