The Supreme Court ruled against Obama's energy plan, and it's a huge deal.

Last night's New Hampshire primaries went pretty smoothly, all things considered.

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both took home sweeping victories for their respective parties. And in their victory speeches, both Trump and Sanders noted that despite the positive steps forward, they still have long fights ahead of them. "They are throwing everything at me except the kitchen sink, and I have the feeling that the kitchen sink is coming pretty soon as well," noted Sanders.


Photo by Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images.

Another victory went to voter turnout, which has been pretty astounding so far in New Hampshire and Iowa.

But behind all the victorious fanfare was a subtle yet important defeat — one that could have implications long after 2016.

Late Tuesday night, the Supreme Court announced that it would block President Obama's efforts to curb global warming by reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants.

The Clean Power Plan, which was announced in August, aimed to set new national standards for reducing carbon emissions from coal plants, which, according to the EPA, account for 77% of carbon dioxide emissions produced in the electricity sector.

A coal plant in Pennsylvania. Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images.

Last night's 5-4 ruling on the plan was a stay request, which essentially means the EPA will not be allowed to enforce the plan for now. Although it's not the final word on things (an appeal to uphold the CPP will be heard in June), it's a surprising blow to the president's efforts to combat climate change.

Among the primary opponents of the Clean Power Plan are coal states such as Wyoming, whose legislators and citizens alike argue that they would lose thousands of jobs if the measure is passed.

Unfortunately, this vote is much more important symbolically than you may realize.

Why? While the Supreme Court's four liberal members opposed the stay request, it simply wasn't enough. That's alarming when you consider that:

1. Supreme Court justices are periodically appointed by presidents.

2. Presidents generally appoint justices with whom they share ideological views.

Since four justices are in their 70s or 80s, the next president will probably make at least one appointment. The implications for climate change could be huge.

Photo by Steve Petteway/Wikimedia Commons.

Right now, the Supreme Court is made up mostly of conservative justices, with Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg occupying the court's only strong liberal positions.

And since conservative justices are more likely to vote against climate measures — or deny climate change altogether — a conservative president appointing another conservative justice could be bad news for future emission reduction plans or other climate-change-curbing regulations.


Climate change is one of the most immediate and present threats to the livelihood of all people.

And a great way to fight it is with sweeping, immediate legislation. If the Supreme Court is still able to surprise us like they did last night — and block a tip-of-the-iceberg measure to address such a huge problem — I smell trouble. And carbon.

Heroes
via Twitter / Soraya

There is a strange right-wing logic that suggests when minorities fight for equal rights it's somehow a threat to the rights already held by those in the majority or who hold power.

Like when the Black Lives Matter movement started, many on the right claimed that fighting for black people to be treated equally somehow meant that other people's lives were not as valuable, leading to the short-lived All Lives Matter movement.

This same "oppressed majority" logic is behind the new Straight Pride movement which made headlines in August after its march through the streets of Boston.

Keep Reading Show less
popular

For most of us, the hypothetical question of whether we would stick with a boyfriend or girlfriend through the trials of cancer and the treatments is just that – a hypothetical question. We would like to think we would do the right thing, but when Max Allegretti got the chance to put his money where mouth is, he didn't hesitate for a second.

Keep Reading Show less
popular
via bfmamatalk / facebook

Where did we go wrong as a society to make women feel uncomfortable about breastfeeding in public?

No one should feel they have the right to tell a woman when, where, and how she can breastfeed. The stigma should be placed on those who have the nerve to tell a woman feeding her child to "Cover up" or to ask "Where's your modesty?"

Breasts were made to feed babies. Yes, they also have a sexual function but anyone who has the maturity of a sixth grader knows the difference between a sexual act and feeding a child.

Keep Reading Show less
popular
Instagram / JLo

The Me Too movement has shed light on just how many actresses have been placed in positions that make them feel uncomfortable. Abuse of power has been all too commonplace. Some actresses have been coerced into doing something that made them uncomfortable because they felt they couldn't say no to the director. And it's not always as flagrant as Louis C.K. masturbating in front of an up-and-coming comedian, or Harvey Weinstein forcing himself on actresses in hotel rooms.

But it's important to remember that you can always firmly put your foot down and say no. While speaking at The Hollywood Reporter's annual Actress Roundtable, Jennifer Lopez opened up about her experiences with a director who behaved inappropriately. Laura Dern, Awkwafina, Scarlett Johansson, Lupita Nyong'o, and Renee Zellweger were also at the roundtable.

Keep Reading Show less
popular