BREAKING: SCOTUS RULES AGAINST BUSH ON GLOBAL WARMING

[cali]

Court rules against Bush in global warming case
Reuters
Monday, April 2, 2007; 10:33 AM



Special Report



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a defeat for the Bush administration, a closely divided Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a U.S. government agency incorrectly determined it lacks the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.

The nation's highest court said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "has offered no reasoned explanation" for its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions from new cars and trucks that contribute to climate change.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/02/AR2007040200508.html

[stellanoir]

1. wows SCOTUS rules sensibly

cool

[cali]

2. kick

this appears, on first glance, to be an important decision.

[librechik]

3. ...but did not order Bush to limit CO2

allows Bush to continue ignoring law

[aquart]

6. Roberts like narrow rulings.

But he couldn't get a unanimous one here........interesting.

[magellan]

7. Bingo. The Bush**-controlled EPA isn't likely to enforce the law.

They were just looking for an excuse to keep ignoring it.

[Kagemusha]

9. That's not really true, as I read it.

In the absence of the EPA ruling it had no authority to regulate, the EPA would've been required to follow the regulations Congress laid out in founding the EPA. The supreme court just knocked down that ruling. So, the EPA is required to follow the regulations. The supreme court didn't order the EPA to do so because it doesn't have to; the requirement to do so is black and white. If the EPA fails to follow its regulations for some other reason, that'll be a different legal matter (and not one the admin is anywhere near as likely to win as this case, which it lost).

But the pre-existing order is actually from Congress.

[librechik]

10. hope you are right

I fear this decision will be used to delay and obfuscate.

We may need to force them to enforce the law, given their track record--and their demonstrated contempt for it.

[NightWatcher]

13. the EPA is supposed to follow the rules kinda like the DOJ is as well?

You mean like they were not supposed to violate the Constitution and Bill of Rights and illegally spy on us?

GEE, good thing that the scruples of the EPA are above reproach

[Kagemusha]

18. But you're wrong to expect the supreme court to be the solution here.

They're judges, not unelected kings. They've made a declaration as to what the law is; it's not their job to point fingers and give commands that's not theirs to give. The courts are a last resort only after the EPA gets a chance to do the right and legal thing and Congress has a chance to oversee it and sort things out.

I think Atrios' line that applies to this matter is that the solution is to "elect Democrats"...

Edit: Other stories seem to characterize this as the court ordering the EPA to take another look (in accordance with the law)... the person I replied to seems to have wanted the court to order the EPA to commit specific action (forcing it not to review regulations, but to mandate specific action). Isn't it obvious how that's not the court's job here? They're not scientists. Now if the EPA goes and thumbs its nose at the law again, they'll be back for another public spanking. That would be the court's job.

[aquart]

4. Georgie, sure it's still your Supreme Court?

[bryant69]

5. Interesting

And gratifying.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NightWatcher]

8. No real victory here guys, GWB controls the EPA

Do names like Christine Whitman mean anything? He may have to now listen to the EPA, but he also sets up the head of the EPA. So this is no change, it only gives the appearance of legitimacy.

Put the cork back in the champagne bottles.

[rodeodance]

11. it is a Catch 22 situation. First WH used excuse----we can not do it--now

they can---so what out.

[cali]

12. I don't think you're correct here, and thank you very

much, but I will take a sip of virtual champagne. In addition, bushco is gone in a little over a year and a half, and he's already the lamest of ducks.

I swear, some people here, are determined to look through a glass darkly at everything.

[NightWatcher]

14. are you saying that gwb doesnt control the EPA?

[cali]

16. No, but I'm saying his grip on agencies such

as the EPA is loosening, and that he won't be there for very much longer.

[NightWatcher]

20. yes, the grip is starting to slip, but we've a ways to go.

I am not a pessimistic person. I like to think of myself as a half-glass-full kinda guy. Maybe in time the pendulum will swing back towards law, order, and normalcy.

[bettyellen]

19. i think she's pointing out he is starting to lose control of everything...

not enough to make you happy, but nonetheless, his "mandate" is a bad joke now...

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. "closely divided"

Let me tell you about cases which are within a vote or two of going the other way. Conservatives see this as an opportunity. They don't see these rulings as written in concrete. Right now, in law offices all over this country, and in universities, opportunistic lawyers are telling people/students that these things can be changed in the near future with a different combination of judges on the court. And some unscrupulous lawyer/teachers, don't even tell the class that an opinion is a judge's dicta and not part of the court's reasoning.

[morningglory]

17. Hey! You guys cut it out! April Fools Day was yesterday! n/t

[DCKit]

21. Headline: "Not our department" defense doesn't fly with SCOTUS

Bwahahahaha!!!!

What next, the FDA starts protecting the food and drug supply? DoE takes responsibility for promoting alternative energy? Congress begins confirming only those who are qualified to perform the jobs they are being appointed to fill? The DoJ starts prosecuting election fraud?

It's a strange new world.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

22. kick

[lonestarnot]

23. Hot diggity. Surprise me!

[PhilipShore]

24. Kick

:nopity:

[eridani]

25. This is why I'll vote for any Dem in the general election--

--even if I have to hold my nose.

[progressoid]

26. Tomorrow on Rush: "Activist Judges"

[Shoelace]

27. Huffpost: Bush's isolation on this issue is now total. Only Inhofe stands with him..

Do states and environmental groups have standing to sue EPA?

(To show legal standing, states had to show they would be harmed by the excess global warming that would occur without EPA regulations. This was the real sticking point, and it was at the center of the conservative justices' dissent.)

Verdict: Yes.

Does the EPA have the right to regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act?

Verdict: Yes.



Can the EPA choose not to regulate CO2 emissions at its own discretion?

Verdict: The court told EPA to ... reconsider its claim that it has that discretion. Said majority opinion writer Justice John Paul Stevens: "EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change." The court also disparaged what it called EPA's "laundry list" of stupid reasons why it shouldn't so regulate. In effect, the court put enormous pressure on EPA to regulate.

This is a huge, huge deal. The proximate effect is that California's pioneering efforts against climate change are safe from federal interference.

More broadly, the Supreme Court has put the weight of the judicial branch of the federal government behind the effort to fight global warming. There is no longer a shred of doubt, if there was any left, that federal action is inevitable.

Bush's isolation on this issue is now total. No one stands with him -- not Congress, not the business community, not the religious community, not the public at large, not the courts. Only James Inhofe. That's a grim assessment indeed.

(More background on the case from Environmental Defense, one of the plaintiffs.)

(Still more from ThinkProgress, and more yet from SCOTUSblog.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/supreme-court-rules-again_b_44814.html


historic and with teeth yet!

[mzmolly]

28. It's the least they could do after inserting Idiot son 6 years ago.

But I am heartened, so a :toast: is in order.

[CrazyOrangeCat]

29. late kick.

[wiggs]

30. Just heard on RW radio: "The liberal left just made every one of us a polluter,

because we breath CO2, so they can now regulate every aspect of our lives. If they can regulate breathing they can regulate anything!"

And... "without CO2, all the plants will die!"

They're fast.

DC dems should be all over this just as quickly, talking about inaccurate reporting of scientific findings by WH, burying WH heads in sand on climate change, secret energy task force, putting lobbyists in charge of regulating their own industries, etc....etc... Not so hard.

[nam78_two]

31. K&R-But this article doesn't have

my favorite line from the NY Times article on the same thing though :D :

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/washington/02cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1175564059-/8MVHjMIrVCaZA9NwtZ3Vw

Prominent loser: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

Something you don't hear everyday but wish you could :bounce:....

[NastyDiaper]

32. great news

typical arrogant *ites said 'even if we have the authority, we won't enforce'

a smackdown like this is the only thing they understand.

[RestoreGore]

33. What did the court mean by "reconsider?"

Does that language actually give the EPA an out to say they "reconsidered" their rejection and determined it is not in their jurisdiction, and can it be appealed? How binding is this really? And from my reading of this which I have yet to finish, it covers "new" cars and trucks. What about those already out here spewing millions of tons of CO2 into the air everyday? What about shipping? Airplanes? Buildings? Don't get me wrong, this is first step, but we really don't have much time to now be debating this ruling. If the court truly believes that CO2 is a gas regulated by the EPA there is nothing to "reconsider". The court should have been firm stating it must be regulated. I'm willing however to say good and wait to see the next step... hoping it doesn't come too long down the road. I saw a segment on Sixty Minutes this past Sunday about our warmign Earth with some stark pictures of Antarctica, and if we are going to start mitigating the effects of this crisis we better get moving.