I'd bet a dollar that the dissenters were Thomas and Scalia.

They were, @1.

So does pollution from China that impacts WA, OR, and CA from coal exported from the US count?

Good reason to kill coal exports.

Scalia and Thomas would have been my guess, too.

There aren't enough dollars to go around if everyone guessed.

The dissent is incredible. According to what I read at The New York Times Scalia and Thomas (Alito recused himself) co-authored a screed that, not satisfied with overturning essentially all environmental legislation in the country and especially the Clean Air Act, denounced the very notion as Marxist. Because apparently that's a valid Constitutional argument of some sort.

Do these rules extend to China?

Or else there's no hope for WA.

Did you guys read the actual opinions? Scalia's argument is that instead of deciding who has to reduce pollution based on the costs, you have to do it based on the amount of pollution. I read half his opinion, (haven't read the majority yet), and it's pretty brutal.

@3

When you look for the embodiment of disinterested detachment, you have Clarence Thomas. He's the Ronald Reagan of the Supreme Court.

When you look for the embodiment of evil, look to Scalia. He's their Dick Cheney.

Suggesting that libertarians are against all environmental regulations is another way of saying, "I haven't bothered reading what libertarians think because it takes up the time I could otherwise spend judging them!"

This is the kind of thing most libertarians would support because it affects other people's property.

Full disclosure: I am not a libertarian. I just think one should be informed before criticizing something.