Thou Shalt Not Breathe Too Much
By Socrates Posted in Archived — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Environmental Protectiona Agency is in a world of hurt.
Via Volokh Conspiracy:
Supreme Court Decides "Global Warming" Case: The Supreme Court handed down its decision in the "global warming" case, Massachusetts v. EPA, and it looks like a significant victory for environmental interests. Stevens managed to keep Kennedy on board, so it was a 5-4 ruling that will make the EPA go back and reconsider the petition to regulate greenhouse gases.
(more below, and other stuff at the Academy)
So now the full power of the EPA will be unleashed on greenhouse gas emissions. Hopefully the Administration still can supply some rational influence on the bureaucracy.
Since by far the greatest greenhouse gas is water vapor, and wetlands are a source of evaporating water, CO2, and methane, the EPA will now have to choose between protecting wetlands to save the planet and drying them up, which will also save the planet. One supposes they will save the planet either way. It's a great time to be an American.
Since wood-eating insects and flatulating cattle are the single largest source of methane and CO2, perhaps the EPA can join forces with the FDA to mandate that we stop breeding cattle for food, and instead begin to eat cockroaches and termites.
Mmmmm, termites.
They have standing as the amalgamation of the injury suffered by all the citizens of the State. The expansion of standing allowed organizations and groups that "represent the interests" of a certain group of individuals that can and do suffer personal injury, to participate in suits brought to address those injuries to the members.
I did not read the opinion, and I don't agree that there should be standing here - but for the reason that this is a political question and not one that the judiciary is equipped to answer. However, I don't need to read it to make a credible argument for why it exists.
Can someone please coorect my understanding if I am wrong - but this decision does not mandate that the EPA do anything, only that the EPA does in fact have the power to do something. The Administration was not claiming that the EPA was justified in not acting, it was claiming that the government and the EPA, had no authority to act under federal law even if it wanted to do so.
My guess is that the petition will be "reconsidered" and the EPA will reject the need or desirability of creating regulations on the matter. Especially since the topic is constantly discussed as needing new legislation and treaty obligations.
i mean, seriously......what retard(s) wasn't able to adequately present the facts behind global warming to the supreme court? my mother could have won this case. i can understand some kool aid drinker who gets their global warming facts filtered through the likes of al gore and the ad council.....but how do you lose a case when your side has the benefit of scientific fact against a side that only has pseudo-science and religious ideology? how???
5-4.
Justice Kennedy, reporting for duty.
--
See the Academy
This decision has pushed the doctrine of standing so far as to be nearly worthless.
The majority gave the state of Massachusetts standing in this case, although it does not meet the traditional requirements of standing, even in their expanded form after the 70's case, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife.
Read the first few pages of the dissent by Chief Justice Roberts, and you'll see what I mean.
To have standing, you must have personal injury caused by the action that you are challenging. But how exactly was the state of Massachusetts personally injured?
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher