Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power The Courts Politics

Court: NRC In Violation For Not Ruling On Yucca Mountain 258

schwit1 sends this quote from an AP report: "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] to complete the licensing process and approve or reject the Energy Department's application for a never-completed waste storage site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain. In a sharply worded opinion, the court said the nuclear agency was 'simply flouting the law' when it allowed the Obama administration to continue plans to close the proposed waste site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The action goes against a federal law designating Yucca Mountain as the nation's nuclear waste repository. 'The president may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections,' Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in a majority opinion (PDF), which was joined Judge A. Raymond Randolph. Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland dissented. The appeals court said the case has important implications for the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government. 'It is no overstatement to say that our constitutional system of separation of powers would be significantly altered if we were to allow executive and independent agencies to disregard federal law in the manner asserted in this case by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,' Kavanaugh wrote. 'The commission is simply defying a law enacted by Congress ... without any legal basis.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court: NRC In Violation For Not Ruling On Yucca Mountain

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @06:36PM (#44558911)

    If the supreme court wants to keep Yucca Mountain running, they can head out to Nevada and run it themselves!

  • an obvious sellout who's also a raving misogynistic looney that's utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living

    I don't think, either of the major candidates last year were misogynists. Both had lovely families — and full backing of their wives. Romney's wife, in particular, did not even have her own political ambition as an incentive to appear backing her husband.

    There was nothing "loony" about either candidate, but Mitt Romney would've followed the law in question — and done a number of other things right by now...

    utterly out of touch with what it means to work for a living.

    I'm confused here... I thought, your wrath was directed at Romney — who did work for his living before becoming a politician — but now you appear to be angry at Obama, who moved into politics straight out of college and whose biggest Executive position before Presidency was running a (failed) small-time charity...

If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.

Working...