SCOTUS rules against Bush on Global Warming

KingMerv00 said:
The dissent attacks all three prongs of standing.

1)Harm - Roberts thinks that the harm is not particularized. Global warming is a national concern and best handled through legislation and the democratic process.

2)Causation - The burden of proof weighs slightly against the petitioners. They must show that their harm is "fairly tracable" to the agency action or inaction.

3)Remedy - There is no guarantee that regulations will affect global warming. See pg. 28 of the opinion:
Click to expand...

A recent judgement in Australia on a new coal mine has just made the same weasel judgement. If one small part of CO2 creation is not wholly responsible for AGW, why pick on just it?

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1849776.htm

Is this a limitation of the legal process? By only considering each case in isolation, we end up with no action being taken globally.

The dissent also attacks Mass's right to petition the EPA as a state. Roberts claims that they are not allowed. I am unfamiliar with this part of law.

Long story short: "Leave the EPA alone. They are the experts. We hired them to make these kinds of determinations."
Click to expand...


Which makes you wonder, is the EPA being left alone? If they are the experts, why have they not even made a ruling on CO2 and global warming, yes or no?
 
a_unique_person said:
A recent judgement in Australia on a new coal mine has just made the same weasel judgement. If one small part of CO2 creation is not wholly responsible for AGW, why pick on just it?

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1849776.htm

Is this a limitation of the legal process? By only considering each case in isolation, we end up with no action being taken globally.
Click to expand...

The majority (Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer, and Kennedy) believes that while agency action may not stop or reverse global warming, it can at least slow it.

Which makes you wonder, is the EPA being left alone? If they are the experts, why have they not even made a ruling on CO2 and global warming, yes or no?
Click to expand...

Making a ruling allows scrutiny. Scrutiny is the first step in being held accountable.
 
a_unique_person said:
I don't get it. If this was a judgement about CO2 and the EPA being responsible, in what way was it a loss for Bush, if the EPA lost?
Click to expand...

In addition to what the others have said, there is a more subtle aspect to it. Bush has been trying to sabotage the EPA by appointing an administrator who is overall opposed to its existence (similar to what he did by appointing anti-UN ambassodor John Bolton to the UN), figuring the person will let the EPA disintegrate (IIRC, the EPA has been voluntarily cutting back on its requested budget in recent years - basically an unprecedented action for a government program). The court has now said that it doesn't matter, the EPA is still responsible for environmental protection, and has to do its job.

This is a loss for Bush because it says that you can't just throw people into these positions who will try to ignore the agency missions.
 
pgwenthold said:
In addition to what the others have said, there is a more subtle aspect to it. Bush has been trying to sabotage the EPA by appointing an administrator who is overall opposed to its existence (similar to what he did by appointing anti-UN ambassodor John Bolton to the UN), figuring the person will let the EPA disintegrate (IIRC, the EPA has been voluntarily cutting back on its requested budget in recent years - basically an unprecedented action for a government program). The court has now said that it doesn't matter, the EPA is still responsible for environmental protection, and has to do its job.

This is a loss for Bush because it says that you can't just throw people into these positions who will try to ignore the agency missions.
Click to expand...
Anyone remember James Watt as Secretary of Interior? I concur with your assessment on what the court's action is intended to do, at least in part, and I see it as a good thing. The EPA can be a pain in the butt, but it appears that sometimes, good stewardship can't be counted on, at least not based on volunteerism.

As far as I am concerned, Mexican businesses should be required to meet EPA standards or not be allowed to do business in the US. That was, IMO, one of the real crimes of NAFTA: no significant incentive for Mexico to improve its environmental practices.

DR
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
This is a loss for Bush because it says that you can't just throw people into these positions who will try to ignore the agency missions.
Click to expand...

I agree sort of. But this is more of a theoretical loss than an actual one. Basically, Bush is in charge of the bureaucracy and a little tweak from the supreme court is likely to have little effect.

So, like drkitten said, the agency might need to formulate an actual position now, but they can take their time doing it and they can maneuver the position to as much as possible be consistent with the administration's overall strategic view which is to do nothing significant with regard to controlling CO2 emissions (unless it involves corrupt, ineffective programs like the ethanol scam).

The administration's position with regard to this is strengthened considerably because by a large margin their remaining political base thinks that human caused global warming is a scam. And that political base is enough to allow Bushco to continue to govern with some power for the next two years.

So, even though I now have a better idea of the legal issues involved thanks to some of the posts in this thread, I still think my original judgment that this ruling was of little practical consequence was correct.
 
davefoc said:
I agree sort of. But this is more of a theoretical loss than an actual one. Basically, Bush is in charge of the bureaucracy and a little tweak from the supreme court is likely to have little effect.

So, like drkitten said, the agency might need to formulate an actual position now, but they can take their time doing it and they can maneuver the position to as much as possible be consistent with the administration's overall strategic view which is to do nothing significant with regard to controlling CO2 emissions (unless it involves corrupt, ineffective programs like the ethanol scam).

The administration's position with regard to this is strengthened considerably because by a large margin their remaining political base thinks that human caused global warming is a scam. And that political base is enough to allow Bushco to continue to govern with some power for the next two years.

So, even though I now have a better idea of the legal issues involved thanks to some of the posts in this thread, I still think my original judgment that this ruling was of little practical consequence was correct.
Click to expand...

You are mostly right. At least this will force the EPA to take a position and explain it.
 
KingMerv00 said:
You are mostly right. At least this will force the EPA to take a position and explain it.
Click to expand...

Yes, and from my perspective that is a good thing.

I was curious about the legal theory on standing. It seems like the argument that the people who brought the case didn't have standing was a bit strained, but I wasn't sure. Was this a reasonable theory that reasonable people can disagree about or was this just a routine legal dodge to provide a reason to cover up whatever the real reason was that the justices voted how they did?
 
I looked over some of Brown's links. Alas it looked like a lot of complicated discussion on standing. I was curious about it but not quite that curious.

But let me ask this question, if the states can't challenge an EPA decision like this (as apparently 4 of the supreme court justices argued) who could? Suppose the congress decided to regulate chemicals affecting the ozone layer and the EPA didn't feel like enforcing the congressional intent. What entity could challenge this decision by the EPA. Presumably the president could order them to follow the law, but let's assume the president doesn't agree with the law and doesn't want to order the EPA to enforce the law?

It seems like the four supreme court justices in the minority on this decision are making the argument that the EPA can ignore congressional intent as long as there is no class sufficiently and provably damaged by the EPA's failure to enforce congressional intent so as to qualify for standing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom