Judge Reluctant to Rule on Global Warming

[Placebo]

A federal judge expressed reluctance about beginning judicial oversight of pollution issues that affect global warming as she heard arguments Friday in a complaint brought by eight states against some of the nation's largest power companies.

"Why should I do something that Congress and the president have decided they don't want to do as a matter of policy?" Judge Loretta Preska asked lawyers for the states.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the states would prove that the five power companies are responsible for 10 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions.

The states are asking the judge to order the companies to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 3 percent annually for 10 years.

More...

[madeline_con]

1. "Joseph R. Guerra, a lawyer for the companies ...

... said the states wanted the judge to "resolve an environmental policy question with sweeping implications for the nation's economy, its foreign relations and even potentially its national security."

National security? I don't get it. :shrug:

[Miss Chybil]

6. That's the catch-all - National Security.

If you can't cover it with something else, you throw it under National Security.

[madeline_con]

8. Of course...

and because it's a matter of National Security, they can't disclose the reasons. Gotcha. :thumbsup:

[Dogmudgeon]

2. I can't blame her

Any decision she hands down will be appealed and analyzed to the molecule. And either the entire Right Wing will end up hating her, or our own smaller group of hotheads will end up hating her.

This kind of case should really be huge, multi-state, with an enormous class of injured parties, and trillions of dollars at stake, to basically make the power companies the property of the people they "serve".

But that would be Socialism, and we all know Socialism is wrong.
:sarcasm:

--p!

[burrowowl]

3. Good post! eom

[Gyre]

4. I CAN blame her.

She's paid to determine "the truth" regardless of any political price that might be paid. That's why she's got lifetime tenure. I think she's a gutless hag and a disgrace to the legal "profession". :puke:

Gyre

[Sgent]

5. She is not paid to determine the truth

She is paid to determine the legally applicable facts of a case, and apply them to the law as handed down by the supreme court and Congress.

The states haven't even proven damages, much less proximate causation.

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Q.E.D.

Not knowing Loretta Preska from Eve, I don't have much personal affection for her, but the law is pretty clear -- if her ruling is circumvented (by reversal or by being vacated) on appeal, the higher courts' rulings will apply.

Basically, she is being set up to take a bullet for whichever political hacks want to make hay. These days, the hacks are almost entirely Republicans, and Guerra is their muscle in this case. That's why HE is the one who has pushed for this. It's no-win for the judge, and I'm sure the Right is going to take this one to the bank -- every single time the issue comes up in a court of law.

--p!

[DeepModem Mom]

9. kick

[Julius Civitatus]

10. She is a Poppy Bush appointee, and staunch Republican

This is what you get from wingnut ACTIVISTS JUDGES from the right.

[Mairead]

11. "reduce their carbon dioxide emissions by 3 percent annually for 10 years"

Is it going to MATTER in 10 years!??!

[Coventina]

12. It's too late anyway, we're past the "tipping point" and we're doomed

So any "ruling" is meaningless.

Enjoy what life and beauty there is left, because it'll be gone within the next 50 years or so.

Welcome to mass extinction of all life on earth, courtesy of Poppy Bush and his friends in the BFEE.

[kodi]

13. Hey stupid! It's because you swore an oath to the US Constitution.

.