The SCOTUS connects the dots.

The SCOTUS, fresh with two Bush appointees, issued a powerful rebuke to the Bush administration today, ruling that the EPA has to do something about global climate change. The EPA was sued by states who demanded that they take action. The Bush administration had argued, against all logic, that the EPA didn’t have the right to regulate dangerous emissions, and that even if they could they wouldn’t, because both global warming and gravity are libruhl conspiracies.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

13 replies on “The SCOTUS connects the dots.”

  1. And once again, the far Left demands from courts/bureaucracies what they can’t get through the democratic process.

    If it’s all so clear, why was there a four-vote dissent? If the far Left wants to make clear the EPA’s authority, why not just pass a statute to that effect? Might it be that such an effort would fail?

  2. Miranda was 5-4. Griffith v. Kentucky was 6-3. The Prize Cases were 5-4. New York Times was 6-3. All very rightly decided cases, all landmark cases. But they just barely squeaked through. Was Grifith just uppity blacks demanding from courts what they couldn’t get through the democratic process? If so, was that wrong?

    On the other hand, Plessy was 7-1. Nearly unanimous, but wrong.

    This whole case seems like Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife revisited, this time with the proper ruling.

  3. For lack of a better word than “pollutant,” yes, excess CO2 is a pollutant. In the same sense that excess water proved to be a “pollutant” to New Orleans in 2005, excess uranium is a “pollutant” to soil, and excess calcium is a “pollutant” to one’s kidneys. All naturally-occuring in a certain quantity, but when it occurs in too great of a quantity then it becomes problematic. The term that we use for this is “pollutant.”

  4. Those sissies at the Supreme Court should know better that to throw down that 5-4 bullshit. After all, what’s needed there is a majority of votes.

    What, it’s not like the size of the majority makes the opinion any less conclusive. Just something for SCOTUS-files, and right-wingers to grouse over when they are on the ‘4’ side.

    What was the Bush coronation vote by the SCOTUS? 6-3? DAMN THOSE MINORITY OPINIONS!!!

  5. The SCOTUS did not rebuke Bush. Instead they assumed more authority than they rightly have. Judge Smails stated the problem succinctly. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant? If so, then the EPA should regulate exhaling.

    Have you considered what would happen if you removed all the CO2 from the air? Fortunately, we cannot.

    The EPA does not regulate greenhouse gases because it is a policy decision, and they do not have any guidance. They also don’t even know where they would start. Are they going to stop volcanos from polluting the environment? The idea that a Federal Agency should decide this issue is just absurd.

    Congress clearly never expected the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. This decision is the same kind of folly that led to the Civil War. Then, via the Dred Scott Decision, the court insisted on making slavery an issue. Now the Supreme Court is trying to force a federal department into making a policy decision, pretending the EPA is already authorized to do something neither the Constitution nor Congress intended.

    Let the citizens of Massachusetts regulate carbon dioxide emissions to their heart’s content. If the can demonstrate that such works, then we can follow their example.

  6. Congress clearly never expected the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

    How remarkable that you should see something so clearly that the Supreme Court has declared to be anything but.

  7. Waldo, there is nothing mysterious about this. How come Clinton never submitted the Kyoto protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol) to Congress? We both know the answer, don’t we?

    BTW, I suggest you look at this. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

    In that part of the world where Krakatoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa) still lives, the local islands and seabed are being forced under a continental plate. As that happens, for the most part slowly, thank God, the volcanos above release great volumes of carbon dioxide and other, even more noxious, gases. What plans do you think the EPA should make for stopping this dastardly pollution?

  8. I’m amused at the recurring argument among posters here is that CO2 occurs naturally and thus is not a pollutant, and is unreasonable to regulate. As Waldo so rightly pointed out, Uranium is naturally occurring, but I’d be surprised to hear any of you speaking up for its deregulation. The issue here is the acceptable quantities of it in our air.

    Have you considered what would happen if you removed all the CO2 from the air? Fortunately, we cannot.

    Have you considered what would happen if we quadrupled the amount of CO2 in the air? Yeah, me neither, and it’s just as irrelevant to the discussion as your case.

  9. Tom,

    I’m assuming you’re being intentionally obtuse, but where do you get the idea that any significant number of people want to completely remove all CO2 and its production? You’re welcome to tilt at windmills (or volcanoes) all you want, but it really has nothing to do with the EPA.

    I think most of us simply want controls on man-made pollution. If you find an anti-volcano-emissions group, though, I’ll be right there with you, making fun of them.

  10. Ben, if you tie a plastic bag around your head, you will die of carbon dioxide poisoning — well, at least you will die because all the oxygen has been used up to form carbon dioxide.

  11. Tom,

    Can you explain the relevance of this to either something I said or to one of the dissenting opinions in the SCOTUS case?

  12. For those of us who believe the Supreme Court has overstepped its authority, the bottom line is that the Kyoto Protocol was a treaty designed to regulate CO2. A preliminary Senate vote was held after Clinton signed the treaty and it was held as unacceptable 95-0. Now, the Supreme Court has stepped in and substituted its judgment for that of the elected branches – using the Clean Air Act, which never mentions CO2 or global warming, as a thin veil of cover. It’s pretty galling.

Comments are closed.