Althouse: The D.C. Circuit Court rebukes Obama over Yucca Mountain.

August 13, 2013

The D.C. Circuit Court rebukes Obama over Yucca Mountain.

"The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections...."

24 comments:

Anonymous said...: So, who'w going to make them obey the law? They can continue to thumbing their noses at the law.; 8/13/13, 6:27 PM
Steve said...: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"; 8/13/13, 6:48 PM
Ann Althouse said...: FleetUSA comments:

"Sounds like more of these are in the pipeline if there are litigants with standing on other issues in which the President is ignoring existing legislation. "; 8/13/13, 6:49 PM
avwh said...: Will the MSM press even cover this development, or just ignore anything that shows the POTUS is flouting the law??; 8/13/13, 7:03 PM
kentuckyliz said...: Coal permitting! End the war on coal.; 8/13/13, 7:22 PM
David said...: Of course, Congress has not funded implementation of its law, no matter what NRC does. So they can permit the project and it will still lie dormant because of lack of funding.

Harry Reid wins again.

History, if it remembers him at all, will not be kind to Harry Reid. But I don't think that matters to him one bit.; 8/13/13, 8:20 PM
SteveR said...: Well as Senator Reid points out, the net effect of the administration's actions are good enough to accomplish the objective no matter that the Court rules against them. They have nothing to lose and they know it.; 8/13/13, 8:25 PM
khesanh0802 said...: Slowly the chickens are going to come home to roost. It would seem that this is a significant precedent as far as suspension of the employer mandate is concerned. Transgressions in the executive are piling up and some time soon some ambitious journalists are going to see the opportunity to become as famous as Woodward.

The courts have no real means of enforcing this kind of decision. As these unilateral decisions continue and, presumably get knocked down in court are we getting in a position where the president is open to impeachment? Is there a less "nuclear" way for Congress address the flouting of the law?; 8/13/13, 8:33 PM
dd said...: If the process can not be implemented anyway, because Congress has not allocated funds, then why has the current Administration refused to follow the law. Why wouldn't they follow the law but then let it sit as there are not funds. Rather they are flouting the laws with regard to the approval procedure.
Maybe Harry Reid is afraid that once there is approval then he wont be able to block funding as the other states will rally behind it.; 8/13/13, 8:46 PM
mccullough said...: $15 billion already spent and its still not complete. Sounds like a shovel ready project to complete it. Given the high unemployment in Nevada and that almost 90% of the land in the state is owned by the federal government, the government may as well finish it.; 8/13/13, 9:00 PM
Richard Dolan said...: Reid is an old and nasty man. Both Yucca Mountain and the need for a nuclear waste repository will still be there when he's long gone. So the predictions that a licensing decision will be feckless are premature. As for the ruling that presidents must enforce laws they don't agree with, it only has practical significance in areas where the executive does not enjoy prosecutorial discretion.; 8/13/13, 9:04 PM
Christy said...: The allocation of funds is an interesting issue for the disposal of high level radioactive waste. Fact is, you the ratepayer have been been funding this for decades. A fee of so much per kWh (I've forgotten how much) is added to your bill if any of your power comes from a nuke. As an aside, these monies have not gone into a special account. They've gone into the general fund and work to balance the U.S. national deficit.

Fact remains, yes, congress does the allocation, but it's not taxpayer money. All those billions used to study the already most studied area on the planet (nuclear test site) could have built and operated the site safely 25 years ago. Thank Reid. One of the reasons he keeps being reelected.; 8/13/13, 9:42 PM
SteveR said...: There are no consequences! No fines, jail or impeachment. No loss of a job, no major media exposure. No political fall out. We few who recognize, and have recognized this and actually care that it is wrong, are as rare as hen's teeth.; 8/13/13, 9:43 PM
great Unknown said...: Forget about impeachment. While it may be possible to get a majority in the House to impeach, it still requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate to convict. Can anyone conceive of 2/3 of our Senators voting based on morality and justice, as opposed to the lowest of political considerations?; 8/13/13, 9:57 PM
Rob said...: Reid says the ruling makes no difference because Congress has cut off funding. Kind of makes a mockery of the argument that the Republicans are acting improperly by failing to fund the Affordable Care Act, which everyone from Secretary Sibelius on down assures us is the law of the land.; 8/13/13, 10:32 PM
Sayyid said...: "The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections...."

Employer mandate says what? Consumer cost caps say what?; 8/14/13, 4:00 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Well then. That makes a lot of the recent lawlessness, like the Dream Act Executive Act and others, a lot more... illegal, let's say.; 8/14/13, 7:16 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "Transgressions in the executive are piling up and some time soon some ambitious journalists are going to see the opportunity to become as famous as Woodward."

-- Won't happen. Look what happened to the woman who investigated F&F, Benghazi, etc. By all rights, -SHE- should be the next Woodward.; 8/14/13, 7:18 AM
Cheryl said...: Now the question is how to compel the President/executive branch to follow the law. How does that happen? (I really am interested in what you think about that, Professor!); 8/14/13, 8:09 AM
Illuninati said...: From my perspective, the real problem is that the rest of the Democrats both in government and in the media support Obama in his lawlessness. If even a few prominent Democrats voiced their outrage when Obama flouted the law, he would have to change.; 8/14/13, 8:55 AM
Peter said...: Well, 'Sayyid' has it. But short of impeachment, I don't see what authority anyone has to stop it, if the president just keeps doing as he pleases.; 8/14/13, 8:57 AM
Levi Starks said...: Well, I'm not optimistic about the possibility of a Republican president anytime soon. However, the 51% who voted for Obama, and the press which enables him will be inconsolable if a Republican is ever elected, and decides to govern in the same fashion as Obama.
They will make the actions of the Tea Party seem like a tea party.; 8/14/13, 9:11 AM
Oso Negro said...: It would be interesting for someone to ask Obama precisely which laws he does feel compelled to comply with. What if he doesn't feel that term limits are appropriate for the Presidency? What if he feels that three and half more years just aren't enough and he needs at least ten more? What if the rules governing elections are inconvenient?; 8/14/13, 9:43 AM
cubanbob said...: Somehow I get the impression that if a future republican president were to pull that stunt the courts would hold agency heads in contempt of court and threaten to have the US Marshall's jail them for contempt.

A question not asked is how is it that funds collected by statute for a specific function be diverted to uses they were not intended for? It would seem to be that that is like a state taking the revenue stream from a toll road backed bond and using the funds to pay a general obligation bond.; 8/14/13, 10:26 AM