Difference between revisions of "Massachusetts v. EPA"
(much improved) |
(improved again) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Court to Bush: Take a Stance on Global Warming | Court to Bush: Take a Stance on Global Warming | ||
| − | Even with two Bush-appointed Justices, the Supreme Court | + | Even with two Bush-appointed Justices, the Supreme Court continues to engage in judicial supremacy. In a 5-4 decision, with the conservative Justices in dissent, the Court has ordered President Bush to take a stand about global warming.<ref>Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 3785 (2007).</ref> |
| − | The Court did not, and could not, say what that stance by the Bush Administration should be. But | + | The Court did not, and could not, say what that stance by the Bush Administration should be. But five out of nine Justices seemed alarmed by Al Gore-rhetoric about global warming, and they demand that Bush address the issue. |
| − | Justice John Paul Stevens, who is turning 87 in April and is expected to be the next to retire, wrote for the Court: | + | Justice John Paul Stevens, who is turning 87 in April and is expected to be the next Justice to retire, wrote for the Court: |
A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species -- the most important species -- of a “greenhouse gas.” | A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species -- the most important species -- of a “greenhouse gas.” | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
A “species” of a “greenhouse gas”? From that foundation the Court ruled, in what the media described as the most important environmental decision in years, that the Bush Administration must regulate this “species” or explain in detail why it should not be regulated. | A “species” of a “greenhouse gas”? From that foundation the Court ruled, in what the media described as the most important environmental decision in years, that the Bush Administration must regulate this “species” or explain in detail why it should not be regulated. | ||
| − | Until now, President Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declined to regulate the “greenhouse gases” that Al Gore claims cause global warming. First, the EPA has said that it lacks authority to regulate these emissions by automobiles. Second, has said that car exhaust has little effect on | + | Until now, President Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declined to regulate the “greenhouse gases” that Al Gore claims cause global warming. First, the EPA has said that it lacks authority to regulate these emissions by automobiles. Second, the EPA has said that car exhaust has so little effect on global greenhouse gases that it is pointless to regulate car exhaust further. |
| − | With gasoline prices ranging between $2 and $3 a gallon, this hardly seems the time to reduce fuel efficiency | + | With gasoline prices ranging between $2 and $3 a gallon, this hardly seems the time to reduce fuel efficiency with more regulations. No one has noticed a demand by the public for cars with even poorer less miles-per-gallon performance. |
| − | But on April 2nd, five Justices who enjoy daily limousine rides to and from work | + | But on April 2nd, five Justices who enjoy daily limousine rides to and from work wanted regulatory action. The Court did not tell President Bush exactly what to do, but ordered him to take a position for or against the regulation of certain greenhouse gases. Environmentalists hope this will now become a big election issue. |
| − | + | This lawsuit was initiated by Massachusetts along with 11 other liberal states, one U.S. territory, three cities and thirteen environmental groups. They called global warming “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,” and insisted that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to limit greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. | |
| − | + | Less publicized was how ten conservative states and six trade organizations intervened on the side of President Bush, and challenged the standing of the plaintiffs to complain. All four conservative Justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) agreed, but they lost Justice Kennedy, who became the fifth vote for the liberal side of the Court. | |
| − | Under our constitutional government, the judiciary | + | Under our constitutional government, the judiciary should be at most a co-equal branch of government, with no supervisory powers over the presidency. But a supremacist court has struck again, ordering President Bush to take a position for or against the Academy Award-winning theory of global warming. |
== References == | == References == | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 02:00, April 5, 2007
Court to Bush: Take a Stance on Global Warming
Even with two Bush-appointed Justices, the Supreme Court continues to engage in judicial supremacy. In a 5-4 decision, with the conservative Justices in dissent, the Court has ordered President Bush to take a stand about global warming.[1]
The Court did not, and could not, say what that stance by the Bush Administration should be. But five out of nine Justices seemed alarmed by Al Gore-rhetoric about global warming, and they demand that Bush address the issue.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who is turning 87 in April and is expected to be the next Justice to retire, wrote for the Court:
A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species -- the most important species -- of a “greenhouse gas.”
A “species” of a “greenhouse gas”? From that foundation the Court ruled, in what the media described as the most important environmental decision in years, that the Bush Administration must regulate this “species” or explain in detail why it should not be regulated.
Until now, President Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declined to regulate the “greenhouse gases” that Al Gore claims cause global warming. First, the EPA has said that it lacks authority to regulate these emissions by automobiles. Second, the EPA has said that car exhaust has so little effect on global greenhouse gases that it is pointless to regulate car exhaust further.
With gasoline prices ranging between $2 and $3 a gallon, this hardly seems the time to reduce fuel efficiency with more regulations. No one has noticed a demand by the public for cars with even poorer less miles-per-gallon performance.
But on April 2nd, five Justices who enjoy daily limousine rides to and from work wanted regulatory action. The Court did not tell President Bush exactly what to do, but ordered him to take a position for or against the regulation of certain greenhouse gases. Environmentalists hope this will now become a big election issue.
This lawsuit was initiated by Massachusetts along with 11 other liberal states, one U.S. territory, three cities and thirteen environmental groups. They called global warming “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,” and insisted that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to limit greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.
Less publicized was how ten conservative states and six trade organizations intervened on the side of President Bush, and challenged the standing of the plaintiffs to complain. All four conservative Justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) agreed, but they lost Justice Kennedy, who became the fifth vote for the liberal side of the Court.
Under our constitutional government, the judiciary should be at most a co-equal branch of government, with no supervisory powers over the presidency. But a supremacist court has struck again, ordering President Bush to take a position for or against the Academy Award-winning theory of global warming.
References
- ↑ Massachusetts v. EPA, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 3785 (2007).
